Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-53-22-8.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
171702 characters
Staff Report Z-53-22-8
(Gila Foothills PUD)
February 12, 2024
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Date:
February 12, 2024
Planning Commission Hearing Date:
March 7, 2024
Request From:
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) (2.17
acres), S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Approved Intermediate
Commercial, Planned Community District)
(27.20 acres), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD)
(Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved
Multifamily Residence District, Planned
Community District) (40.77 acres), S-1
(Approved R-3 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Multifamily
Residence District, Planned Community
District) (3.84 acres), S-1 (Approved R-3A
PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Multifamily Residence District,
Planned Community District) (5.04 acres),
S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family
Residence District, Planned Community
District) (9.58 acres), S-1 (Approved R1-18
PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Single-Family Residence District,
Planned Community District) (76.33 acres),
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Single-Family
Residence District, Planned Community
District) (50.30 acres), and S-1 (Approved
RH/R1-10 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Resort
District/Single-Family Residence District,
Planned Community District) (73.40 acres)
Request To:
PUD (Planned Unit Development) (288.63
acres)
Proposed Use:
Planned Unit Development to allow single
and multifamily residential, commercial
uses, and some commerce park
Attachment B
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 2 of 34
Location:
Approximately 860 feet south of the
southwest corner of 51st Avenue and
Carver Road
Owner:
Lines Ruskin R JR, et al.
Applicant:
RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture
Representative:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC
Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Current: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units
per acre (54.23 acres), Residential 2 to
3.5 dwelling units per acre (41.64 acres),
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre (84.24 acres), Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre (57.14 acres),
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
(4.09 acres), Public / Quasi-Public (17.51
acres), and Commercial (25.34 acres),
Resort
Pending (GPA-LV-3-22-8): Commercial /
Commerce/Business Park (100.01
acres), Commercial /
Commerce/Business Park / Residential
10 to 15 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
(65.14 acres), Commercial / Residential
10 to 15 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
(40.46 acres), Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre (78.58 acres),
Resort
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 3 of 34
Street Map
Classification
51st Avenue
Major Arterial, scenic
drive
• South of Estrella
Drive, 33 to 55 feet
west half street
and 33 feet east half
street
• North of Estrella
Drive, 40 to 55 feet
west half street
Estrella Drive
Arterial (west of 47th
Avenue), Local (east
of 47th Avenue)
• 33-foot south half
street (East of 51st
Avenue)
• 0 feet (west of 51st
Avenue)
47th Avenue
Local
• 0-foot west half street
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; ENTREPRENEURS AND
EMERGING ENTERPRISES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that
promote the growth of entrepreneurs or new businesses in Phoenix in
appropriate locations.
The proposed PUD will add employment opportunities and additional housing within
the Laveen Village, in close proximity to the Loop 202.
CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create a new development
or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The proposed variety of land use designations are appropriately arranged to provide
services and housing to the area while also serving as a buffer where adjacent to the
existing residential/rural area. Furthermore, the rezoning case, Z-53-22-8, proposes
development and design standards that are sensitive to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 4 of 34
Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Laveen Southwest Growth Study: Background Item No. 6.
Housing Plan Phoenix: Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 8.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background 10.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 11.
Monarch Butterfly: Background Item No. 12.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 13.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use
Zoning
On Site
Vacant land,
agriculture, and
rural residential
S-1, S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD), S-1
(Approved R-3 PCD), S-1
(Approved R-3A PCD), S-1
(Approved R1-10 PCD), S-1
(Approved R1-18 PCD), S-1
(Approved R1-8 PCD), and S-
1 (Approved RH/R1-10 PCD)
North (across Estrella Drive)
Single-family
residential
Maricopa County (RU-43)
North
Single-family
residential
S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD)
and S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
East (across 51st Avenue)
Single-family
residential
Maricopa County (RU-43)
East (across 47th Avenue)
Single-family
RE-35
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The PUD Narrative incorporates enhanced landscaping and shade standards
throughout the site that will help to provide shade for pedestrians and mitigate the
urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces thus cooling the micro-climate
around the vicinity.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 5 of 34
residential
West
Vacant land, and
Loop 202 Freeway
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
West (across the Loop 202)
Vacant land
Gila River Indian Reservation
Southeast
South Mountain
Park and Preserve
S-1
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1.
This request is to rezone 288.63 acres located approximately 860 feet south of
the southwest corner of 51st Avenue and Carver Road from S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence) (2.17 acres), S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, Planned Community District) (27.20 acres),
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Multifamily
Residence District, Planned Community District) (40.77 acres), S-1 (Approved R-
3 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Multifamily Residence District,
Planned Community District) (3.84 acres), S-1 (Approved R-3A PCD) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Approved Multifamily Residence District, Planned Community
District) (5.04 acres), S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District) (9.58
acres), S-1 (Approved R1-18 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-
Family Residence District, Planned Community District) (76.33 acres), S-1
(Approved R1-8 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family
Residence District, Planned Community District) (50.30 acres), and S-1
(Approved RH/R1-10 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Resort
District/Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District) (73.40
acres) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow single and multifamily
residential, commercial uses, and some commerce park. The proposed PUD will
support new commercial, residential, and resort uses, within close proximity to the
Loop 202 Freeway and along an arterial street (51st Avenue).
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2.
The site currently consists of vacant land, agricultural land, and rural residential.
The property to the north is a single-family residential subdivision zoned S-1
(Approved R1-10 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family
Residence District, Planned Community District) and S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
(Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Planned
Community District).
The properties to the north, across Estrella Road, and east across 51st Avenue
are large-lot single-family houses located within Maricopa County zoned RU-43
(One Acre Per Dwelling Unit).
To the east, across the 47th Avenue alignment, are large-lot single-family houses
zoned RE-35 (Single-Family Residence District).
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 6 of 34
The property to the west is vacant land, zoned S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) (Ranch
or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Planned
Community District) and the Loop 202 Freeway. Across the Loop 202 Freeway, is
vacant land within the Gila River Indian Reservation.
Finally, southeast of the subject site is the South Mountain Park and Preserve
zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence).
Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3.
The north portion of the subject site, north of the Estrella Drive alignment is
designated Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre, Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre, Public / Quasi-Public, and Commercial. The west
portion of the subject site, across 51st Avenue and south of Estrella Drive, is
designated Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre, Residential 5 to 10 dwelling
units per acre, Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre, and Commercial. Finally,
the southeastern portion of the site, south of Estrella Drive and east of 51st
Avenue is designated Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre, Residential 3.5 to
5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The south
portion, designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre includes an “R”
which depicts a general location of resort/s.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 7 of 34
North of the subject site, west of 51st Avenue is designated Residential 2 to 3.5
dwelling units per acre. East of 51st Avenue, north of the subject site is
designated Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. South of the subject site is
designated Parks / Open Space-Public and Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per
acre. To the east, the designation is Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre.
Finally, west of the subject site is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre, and Commercial.
A concurrent minor General Plan Land Use Map amendment case, GPA-LV-3-22-
8, is proposed to change the land use map designations to Commercial /
Commerce/Business Park, Commercial / Commerce/Business Park / Residential
10 to 15 dwelling units per acre / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre,
Commercial / Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre, and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre. The requested PUD zoning is consistent
with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations.
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
PROPOSAL
4.
The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by
case basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5.
Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped January 16, 2024. The
proposed standards were designed to allow commercial, resort, multifamily
residential, and automotive sale uses that offer the flexibility to develop uses that
would generate employment and housing within the Laveen Village.
Conceptual Development Plan and Permitted Uses
The PUD proposes a regulatory framework structured around the creation of
splitting the subject site into 12 development units in three distinct character
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 8 of 34
areas. Development Units 1 and 5, located on the northwest portion of the site,
adjacent to 51st Avenue, are within the District Character Area. Development Unit
1 allows for multifamily residential, and office uses. Development Unit 5 allows for
multifamily residential, and C-2 commercial uses including office, and automotive
service station and gas stations. The character area has a 50-foot landscape
buffer and a height stepback located along the north and east boundary of the
area to further buffer any uses from the single-family residential uses to the north
and east. The District Character Area proposes diverse building styles that
incorporate modern rural architecture including gable rooflines, masonry, stone,
exposed columns, and deep overhangs. The character area will act as a buffer
from the existing residential uses and the proposed uses in the Hub Character
Area and the Loop 202 Freeway.
The majority of the site, Development Units 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 6 and 7 are within the
Hub Character Area. This character area is located primarily along the Loop 202
Freeway and a portion of it is located north of Estrella Drive and east of 51st
Avenue. Development Units 2, 3, and 4A allow C-2 commercial uses, automobile
dealership, offices uses, motor vehicle services, trailer and camper sales, off-
premise signage, and other uses related to automobile dealerships. Development
Unit 6 and 7 will allow for C-2 commercial uses, office, automobile service
stations and multifamily residential uses. Development Unit 4B will allow for C-2
commercial uses, multifamily residential, offices, select commerce park uses and
an automobile dealership and related uses. The Hub Character Area is intended
specifically for an EV-focused auto campus and/or medical campus with
additional commercial uses. Character design guidelines include larger landscape
setbacks and screening to mitigate the impact to surrounding residents.
Architectural features in this area include patina-finish copper, metal roofing,
wooden frames, and accent material that limits glare to adjacent uses. This
character area focuses on employment opportunities adjacent to the Loop 202
Freeway.
Finally, the Foothills Character Area is made up of Developments Units 8, 9A, 9B,
and 10 and is located primarily east of Gila Foothills Parkway and adjacent to
South Mountain Park and Preserve. Development Unit 9A, 9B, and 10, are
directly adjacent to South Mountain Park and will allow multifamily residential,
limited commercial uses including offices, restaurants, bars, and resort uses.
Development Unit 8 will allow for multifamily residential uses and offices and will
have an open space area located between Estrella Drive and Gila Foothills
Parkway. The proposed multifamily residential uses will act as a buffer between
the existing large lot single-family houses east of 47th Avenue and the
commercial uses permitted west of Gila Foothills Parkway.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 9 of 34
Development Units
Source: Gila Foothills PUD Narrative
Recommended updates to the PUD Narrative:
• Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1.b. to clarify how temporary uses will be
addressed in the proposed PUD.
• Stipulation No. 1.c. will require an appendix to address the maximum
square footage allowed for land uses referenced in the Street Master Plan.
Any modifications to this appendix will require a minor amendment to the
PUD.
• Stipulation No. 1.d will include a minimum number of inpatient beds for
hospitals.
• Stipulation No. 1.e establishes a time condition within Development Units
9A, 9B, and 10 before multifamily units can be developed.
• Stipulation No. 1.f clarifies alcohol sales as an accessory use.
Development Standards
The PUD development narrative proposes a unique set of development standards
for Development Units 1 through 10. However, unless modified by the PUD
Narrative, the development shall meet C-2 development standards. A summary of
the standards is provided below (*indicates provisions that include staff
recommended updates that are further explained in the staff report):
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 10 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Maximum
Density/Units
40 dwelling units
per acre
Residential
uses are
prohibited*
Residential
uses are
prohibited
Minimum Building Setbacks
North
50 feet
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
25 feet (Estrella
Drive)
South
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
25 feet
(Estrella Drive)
15 feet (Loop
202 Freeway)
East
50 feet (51st
Avenue), 25 feet
(55th Avenue)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
25 feet (51st
Avenue)
West
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
15 feet (Loop
202 Freeway)
15 feet (Loop
202 Freeway)
Not adjacent to a
street
5 feet
5 feet
5 feet
Adjacent to an interior
street
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
Average 15
feet, minimum 0
feet (Estrella
Drive)
South
0 feet (adjacent
to property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (Estrella
Drive)
Average 10
feet, minimum 0
feet (Loop 202
Freeway)
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 11 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 1
(Continued)
Unit 2
(Continued)
Unit 3
(Continued)
East
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
(51st Avenue);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
(55th Avenue)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line),
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
Average 15
feet, minimum 0
feet (51st
Avenue)
West
0 feet (adjacent
to property line),
C-2 standards
(adjacent to
street)
Average 10
feet, minimum
0 feet (Loop
202 Freeway)
Average 10
feet, minimum 0
feet (Loop 202
Freeway)
Not adjacent to a
street
0 feet
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet
Adjacent to an interior
street
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum 0
feet
Landscape Buffer
50 feet (North
and 51st
Avenue)
N/A
N/A
Maximum Building
Height
40 feet;
North: 20-foot
maximum within
100 feet of the
property line, 30-
foot maximum
within 150 feet of
the property line;
East (51st
Avenue): 30-foot
maximum within
100 feet of the
property line
56 feet, up to
150 feet for a
hospital
56 feet
Maximum Lot
Coverage
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 12 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 1
(Continued)
Unit 2
(Continued)
Unit 3
(Continued)
Minimum Open
Space
Residential uses
greater or equal
to 14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
5% of the net
area.
Residential uses
less than 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 15% of
the net area.
N/A
N/A
Development
Standard
Unit 4A
Unit 4B
Unit 5
Maximum
Density/Units
Residential uses
are prohibited
40 dwelling
units per acre
40 to 60
dwelling units
per acre
Minimum Building Setbacks
North
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
South
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
25 feet (Estrella
Drive)
East
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
25 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
50 feet (51st
Avenue)
West
25 feet (51st
Avenue)
15 feet (Loop
202 Freeway)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
Not adjacent to a
street
5 feet
5 feet
5 feet
Adjacent to an interior
street
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 13 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 4A
(Continued)
Unit 4B
(Continued)
Unit 5
(Continued)
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (adjacent to
interior street)
South
Average 10 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(Loop 202
Freeway)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (Estrella
Drive)
East
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (51st
Avenue)
West
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(51st Avenue)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (adjacent to
interior street)
Not adjacent to a
street
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 14 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 4A
(Continued)
Unit 4B
(Continued)
Unit 5
(Continued)
Adjacent to an interior
street
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet
Landscape Buffer
N/A
N/A
50 feet (51st
Avenue)
Maximum Building
Height
56 feet
56 feet
56 feet;
East (51st
Avenue): 30-
foot maximum
within 100 feet
of the property
line, 48-feet
within 150 feet
of the property
line
Maximum Lot
Coverage
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
Minimum Open
Space
N/A
Residential
uses greater or
equal to 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 5% of
the net area.
Residential
uses less than
14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
15% of the net
area.
Residential
uses greater or
equal to 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 5% of
the net area.
Residential
uses less than
14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
15% of the net
area.
Development
Standard
Unit 6
Unit 7
Unit 8
Maximum
Density/Units
40 dwelling units
per acre
40 dwelling
units per acre
25 dwelling
units per acre
Minimum Building Setbacks
North
15 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
15 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
50 feet (Estrella
Drive)
South
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 15 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 6
(Continued)
Unit 7
(Continued)
Unit 8
(Continued)
East
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
15 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
50 feet (47th
Avenue)
West
25 feet (51st
Avenue)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
15 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
Not adjacent to a
street
5 feet
5 feet
5 feet
Adjacent to an interior
street
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(Gila Foothills
Parkway)
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet
South
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (adjacent to
interior street)
East
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (47th
Avenue)
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 16 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 6
(Continued)
Unit 7
(Continued)
Unit 8
(Continued)
West
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
(51st Avenue)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
Not adjacent to a
street
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
Adjacent to an interior
street
Average 15 feet,
minimum 0 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum
0 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet
Landscape Buffer
N/A
N/A
50 feet (Estrella
Drive and 47th
Avenue)
Maximum Building
Height
56 feet;
51st Avenue: 40-
foot maximum
within 50 feet of
the property line*
40 feet
30 feet;
North (Estrella
Drive) and East
(47th Avenue):
20-foot
maximum within
150 feet of the
property line
Maximum Lot
Coverage
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
Minimum Open
Space
Residential uses
greater or equal
to 14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
5% of the net
area.
Residential uses
less than 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 15% of
the net area.
Residential
uses greater or
equal to 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 5% of
the net area.
Residential
uses less than
14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
15% of the net
area.
Residential
uses greater or
equal to 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 5% of
the net area.
Residential
uses less than
14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
15% of the net
area.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 17 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 9A
Unit 9B
Unit 10
Maximum
Density/Units
40 dwelling units
per acre
40 dwelling
units per acre
40 dwelling
units per acre
Minimum Building Setbacks
North
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
South
Subject to the
South Mountain
Perimeter Zone
standards in the
Design
Guidelines*
Subject to the
South
Mountain
Perimeter Zone
standards in
the Design
Guidelines*
Subject to the
South Mountain
Perimeter Zone
standards in the
Design
Guidelines*
East
N/A*
5 feet (adjacent
to property
line), 15 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
15 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
West
5 feet (adjacent
to property line),
15 feet (adjacent
to interior street)
15 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
15 feet (Loop
202 Freeway)
Not adjacent to a
street
5 feet
5 feet
5 feet
Adjacent to an interior
street
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
5 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (adjacent to
interior street
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 18 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 9A
(Continued)
Unit 9B
(Continued)
Unit 10
(Continued)
South
0 feet and
subject to the
South Mountain
Perimeter Zone
standards in the
Design
Guidelines
0 feet and
subject to the
South
Mountain
Perimeter Zone
standards in
the Design
Guidelines
0 feet and
subject to the
South Mountain
Perimeter Zone
standards in the
Design
Guidelines
East
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
(47th Avenue)
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15
feet, minimum
5 feet (adjacent
to interior
street)
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
West
0 feet, 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
(adjacent to
property line);
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
(adjacent to
interior street)
Average 15
feet, minimum
5 feet (Gila
Foothills
Parkway)
Average 10
feet, minimum 5
feet (Loop 202
Freeway)
Not adjacent to a
street
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
0 feet; 10 feet
adjacent to
residential
Adjacent to an interior
street
Average 15 feet,
minimum 5 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum
5 feet
Average 15
feet, minimum 5
feet
Landscape Buffer
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
Maximum Building
Height
40 feet; East
(47th Avenue):
20-foot maximum
within 150 feet of
the property line;
South: 30-foot
maximum within
50 feet of
property line
40 feet;
South: 30-foot
maximum
within 50 feet
of property line
56 feet;
South: 30-foot
maximum within
50 feet of
property line
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 19 of 34
Development
Standard
Unit 9A
(Continued)
Unit 9B
(Continued)
Unit 10
(Continued)
Maximum Lot
Coverage
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
50% (per C-2
standards)
Minimum Open
Space
Residential uses
greater or equal
to 14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
5% of the net
area.
Residential uses
less than 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 15% of
the net area.
Residential
uses greater or
equal to 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 5% of
the net area.
Residential
uses less than
14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
15% of the net
area.
Residential
uses greater or
equal to 14.0
dwelling units
per acre: 5% of
the net area.
Residential
uses less than
14.0 dwelling
units per acre:
15% of the net
area.
Several of the PUD standards exceed the Zoning Ordinance standards, such as
height limits, building setbacks, and landscape buffers. The proposed PUD allows
for a maximum number of 1,700 residential units. However, if a hospital is
developed in Development Unit 2, then an additional 500 units will be all allowed,
totaling 2,200.
Recommended Updates to the PUD Narrative:
• Staff recommends adding Stipulation No. 1.j to add a row at the end the
building setbacks table to require a 25-foot setback for Development Unit
9A, 9B, and 10. This will add an additional buffer adjacent to South
Mountain Park.
• Stipulation No. 1.k will adjust the 50-foot landscape buffer to apply to
Development Unit 9A, rather than 9B since it is not adjacent to 47th
Avenue.
• Stipulation No. 1.l will require an additional 25-foot landscape buffer for
Development Unit 9A, 9B, and 10 where adjacent to South Mountain Park.
• Stipulation No. 1.m will adjust the building step back provision for
Development Unit 6. The additional step back should apply to Gila
Foothills Parkway to provide an additional height transition from the north,
rather than along 51st Avenue.
• Stipulation No. 1.n updates a footnote to address building heights just
north of South Mountain.
• Stipulation No. 1.o adds a footnote to Development Unit 2 to address
residential density.
• Stipulation No. 1.p deletes a provision for maximum units since the density
standards and footnotes already address the maximum number of units.
• Stipulation No. 1.q and 1.r. clarifies the footnote related to automobile
dealerships and EV chargers.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 20 of 34
• Stipulation Nos. 1.s and 1.t adds a footnote to require additional review
and approval if multifamily is proposed in Development Unit 2 and 5 above
the maximum 1,700 and for multifamily in Development Units 9A, 9B, and
10.
Landscape Standards
The PUD narrative proposes numerous landscaping enhancements that include
landscaping buffers, shading along most public sidewalks, shade pockets, and
enhanced planting standards that exceed the Zoning Ordinance. The PUD
proposes substantial landscape buffers along 51st Avenue, Estrella Drive, and
47th Avenue. The landscaping will provide for a pedestrian-friendly environment
with 75 percent shade on several public sidewalks and include a provision for
shade pockets, exceeding the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Furthermore, all landscape setbacks and buffers will have larger caliper trees
including two-inch, three-inch, and four-inch.
The proposal includes landscaping buffers and landscaping setbacks.
Landscaping buffers are located around the perimeter of the subject site when
adjacent to existing large lot rural residential homes. Landscape setbacks
required per each development unit can be located within the landscape buffer.
The difference between the landscape buffer and the landscape setback is that
the area in the landscape buffer (excluding landscape setback area) can be
included towards open space calculations. Structural buildings and parking
structures are not allowed within the landscape buffer or the landscape setback.
Staff recommends the following modifications to the PUD Narrative that include
updating shading requirements, exhibits, and landscaping improvements in
Maricopa County right-of-way.
Recommended updates to the PUD Narrative:
• Stipulation No. 1.u and 1.v will update the table titles to reflect planting
types, and planting and shade standards when adjacent to a right-of-way.
• Stipulation No. 1.w requires that all sidewalks be shaded to less than 50
percent in the Hub Character Area.
• Stipulation No. 1.x and 1.y provides flexibility for shade where automobile
dealerships are proposed and ensures enhanced shade where an
automobile dealership is not proposed.
• Stipulation No. 1.z clarifies that all landscape in median islands must be
maintained privately and identified on the master street plan and
associated plats.
• Stipulation No. 1.aa clarifies that any street improvements located within
Maricopa County are subject to review and approval of the County.
Parking Standards
The PUD proposes to comply with the Zoning Ordinance minimum parking
standards per Section 702.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 21 of 34
The PUD also requires bicycle parking to be provided per Section 1307.H of the
City of Phoenix Walkable Urban Code. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 square
feet floor area shall provide one bicycle space per 25 vehicle spaces with a
maximum of 25 spaces. The PUD Narrative also includes a requirement for EV
parking for each new auto dealership that would require Level 2 and Level 3
charging stations. Staff recommends Stipulation Nos. 1.q and 1.r to further clarify
the EV standards within the PUD including the number of chargers and the type
of automobile.
Design Guidelines
The Development Narrative includes design standards for each character area.
Building facades facing public streets within the Foothills Character Area shall
have a minimum of three elements that accomplish modern Sonoran architecture.
Some of the elements include exposed wood, pitched roofs, rustic column, and
deep overhangs. The District Character Area shall incorporate modern rural
architecture with a minimum of three elements including brick, galvanized metal,
horizontal or vertical siding, and deep eaves. Finally, the Hub Character Area
proposes commercial and employment buildings that would serve the EV-focused
auto campus by providing modern architecture. The Hub Character Area will
include material such as metal panels, stucco, stainless steel ornament, and
stone.
The design guidelines section also includes requirements for walls/fences,
landscaping, and site design. All three character areas will contain a minimum of
one public art project that will reflect the Laveen Village.
Recommended updates to the PUD Narrative:
• Stipulation No. 1.ee will remove a building height provision from the
landscape design guidelines section.
• Stipulation No .1.ff removes a section on vehicular access restrictions to
avoid conflicts with City standards and/or processes.
• Stipulation No. 1.gg and 1.hh will update exhibits to reflect the updated
shade pocket shading standards.
Fences/Walls
The Hub Character Area will provide walls to screen any auto centric uses from
residential development. Viewing fencing or solid walls will be limited to eight feet
in height. The EV-focused auto campus will not be required to screen any
vehicles on display for sale.
Fences and walls in the District Character Area are required to contribute to the
surrounding Laveen character. Fences shall contain changes in material, colors,
and textures. Furthermore, low walls or visibility walls can be provided to identify
a transition from private to public spaces. The District Character Area will include
a maximum wall height of six feet.
The PUD Narrative requires the use of thematic walls within the Foothills
Caracter Area. This will require opaque material that include stone, brick, and
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 22 of 34
stucco mixed with viewing fencing such as split rail styling fencing. The maximum
height allowed is six feet and ten feet adjacent to the Loop 202 Freeway. The
fence requirements are comparable to the Zoning Ordinance standards with
some minor enhancements.
Shade
The Development Narrative includes a range from 0 to 75 percent shade cover be
provided over public sidewalks, depending on the area. The required shade
standards along many of the public sidewalks exceed the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Shade pockets are also proposed in specific areas where the sidewalk shade
requirement is reduced. This is addressed in the Design Guidelines section.
Staff recommends updates to shade provisions in the PUD Narrative to increase
shade along public streets and provide clarification. These updates are
addressed in the Landscape Standards and Design Guidelines section of this
report (Stipulation Nos. 1.w, 1.x, 1.y, 1.gg, and 1.hh).
Signage
This section of the PUD Narrative includes provisions for on-premise signage,
gateway signage, and off-premise signage.
The PUD Narrative includes an allowance for off-premise signs in conformance
with Section 705 and 705.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Section 705.2
permits for installation of off-premise signs along the State Route (Loop) 202 Ed
Pastor Freeway between Interstate 10 and up to 2,000 feet from the boundary of
the South Mountain Preserve.
The Zoning Ordinance only permits off-premise signs to be on property zoned A-1
Light Industrial, A-2 Industrial District, or PUD. The subject site meets the
locational criterial and if approved, the PUD would be permitted to have off-
premise signs per Section 705 and 705.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Stipulation
No. 1.bb would require signage design to be presented for review and comment
to the Laveen Village Planning Committee as requested by the applicant.
Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several options to incorporate sustainability
principals. Below is a highlight of some of the options:
• EV charging stations
• Smart irrigation controllers to reduce water waste
• Energy efficient lighting and building materials
• Solar panels
• Drought management commitments
Staff recommend adding a provision for recycling as an option in the
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 23 of 34
Sustainability Section. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1.cc.
Other Recommended PUD Updates
• Stipulation No. 1.ii to update all exhibits within the PUD to include the 55th
Avenue connection to Estrella Drive.
• Stipulation No. 1.jj to require legal descriptions for all development units to
be added to the PUD Narrative.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND INITIATIVES
6.
Laveen Southwest Growth
Study
The site is located within the
boundaries of the Laveen
Southwest Growth Study, which
was developed in 1997 to
analyze the existing conditions of
the Laveen Village and provide a
land use and design planning
framework to help shale the
growth that Laveen was starting
to experience, while accounting
for newly annexed farmland as
well as the future development of
the South Mountain Freeway
Loop, which has since been
completed. This plan designates
the project site as Residential 0
to 1 dwelling units per acre,
Parks/Open Space, and
Conservation Community.
Although not consistent with the
designation, recent land use
trends in the area, including the
development of the Loop 202
Freeway, point to a land use mix
that is primarily employment,
commercial and housing
focused. This development would
be consistent with this trend.
Laveen Southwest Growth Study Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
The Laveen Southwest Growth Study also outlines specific design policies and
standards for various types of development that will enhance Laveen’s built
environment while remaining respectful of its agricultural heritage. The study
encourages all new development to use durable, high quality building materials
and to provide enhanced building design that will contribute to the character of
the area. The proposed Development Narrative will require a variety of building
materials on future buildings with a focus on maintaining the character of the
area.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 24 of 34
7.
Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s
rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over
163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to
demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using underutilized land
in a more sustainable fashion.
8.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, and connected transportation system to include all modes, such
as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The PUD proposed several
provisions that are consistent with Complete Streets Guiding Principles including
detached sidewalks along street frontages to promote a safe pedestrian
atmosphere. Additionally, a Complete Streets sections is included in the narrative
which includes an extensive bicycle network within the PUD, street design to
allow for multi-modal mobility, design techniques to reduce direct sunlight
exposure to pedestrians and cyclists and promoting consolidated driveways to
minimize modal conflicts.
Staff recommends the following modifications to the PUD Narrative to clarify
roadway circulation, trails, and improvements in right-of-way. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.dd and 1.ff.
9.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. The PUD proposes an auto campus with a
focus on electric vehicles. The proposal will also require numerous Level 2 and
Level 3 charging stations.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 25 of 34
10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
Destinations. The Development Narrative includes bicycle parking provisions in
all development units.
11. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. In addition, a vision in the master plan is to raise
awareness by leading by example. The Development Narrative requires a range
of shade on all adjacent public sidewalks, in addition to larger tree sizes. These
standards both exceed and do not meet the minimum Zoning Ordinance
requirements. However, overall there are many enhancements that will promote a
comfortable pedestrian experience.
12. Monarch Butterfly
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's
Mayor's Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support
the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is
a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of
milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers,
but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch butterfly
population, the PUD narrative addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or
other native nectar plant species, on the subject site.
13. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The PUD narrative does not address trash and recycling
receptacles on site.
Staff recommends adding a provision for recycling as an option in the
Sustainability section. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1.cc.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. As of the writing of this report, staff has received one letter of support and 31
letters of opposition to this rezoning application. The stated concerns include loss
of scenic views, traffic congestion, light pollution, high-density housing, crime,
increased property taxes, height, allowed commercial uses, and proposed off-
premise signage. Staff has also received an opposition petition with 152
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 26 of 34
signatures.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Street Transportation Department has requested stipulations to address the
following:
• A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted and to update the existing
Tierra Montana Master Street Plans (Stipulation No. 4).
• Update to the existing Tierra Montana Master Street Plan (Stipulation No.
5).
• The developers shall design and install traffic signals and roundabouts as
approved by the TIA and Master Street Plan (Stipulation No. 6).
• The developer shall construct and dedicate any street improvements as
approved by the TIA and Master Street Plan (Stipulation No. 7).
• Access control shall be provided at locations in accordance with City
Design Standards and/or as approved per the Master Street Plan
(Stipulation No. 8).
• Right-of-way dedications and construction (Stipulation Nos. 9 through 12).
• Any modifications to the median landscaping shall be privately maintained
and identified on the Master Street Plan and associated plats (Stipulation
No. 13).
• Dedication of easements and construction of multi-use trails (Stipulation
Nos. 14 through 17).
• All existing electrical utilities located within the public right-of-way shall be
ungrounded (Stipulation No. 20).
• Existing irrigation facilities shall be undergrounded and relocated outside of
the City right-of-way (Stipulation No. 21).
• All streets shall be constructed with all required elements and to ADA
requirements (Stipulation No. 22).
• Updates to the PUD Narrative, as previously addressed in this staff report.
16. The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the proposed development
and has recognized the value of a trailhead along the South Mountain Park and
Preserve. However, they have indicated that unless operational funding is
secured, the Department is unable to commit to the proposed improvements.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 18 which would require the dedication of land
for a trailhead located at the end of Gila Foothills Parkway adjacent to the South
Mountain. Additionally, Stipulation No. 19 is recommended to require that the
developer enter into a development agreement regarding the trailhead.
OTHER
17. Stipulation No. 2 requires additional residential units granted with the construction
of a hospital to be reviewed and approved through the PHO hearing process
including review by the Laveen Village Planning Committee.
18. Stipulation No. 3 will require a Master Density Tracking Matric on all site plan
submittals to track the number of units in the PUD area.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 27 of 34
19. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities
must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly
assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulations No. 23 through 25.
20. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 26.
21. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1.
The proposal is compatible with the existing land use pattern, contains landscape
and height buffers adjacent to existing single-family residential houses in the area
and is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations.
2.
The proposal contains enhanced standards that will result in a more walkable,
shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposal will provide increased
shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island effect.
3.
The proposal will provide additional employment options, commercial services,
and housing opportunities within the Loop 202 Freeway corridor and the Laveen
village.
Stipulations
1.
An updated Development Narrative for the Gila Foothills PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development Narrative date
stamped February 1, 2024, as modified by the following stipulations.
a.
Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 28 of 34
b.
Page 16, Section 3.2 Land Uses Per Development Unit, Permitted Land
Uses: Add a paragraph under the heading as follows:
All temporary uses shall comply with Section 708 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
c
Page 16, Section 3.2 Land Uses Per Development Unit, Permitted Land
Uses: Add a paragraph under the heading as follows:
The permitted land uses depicted below are restricted to the maximum
square footage of the land use assumptions established in Appendix A2.
Land Use Assumptions for Street Master Plan. Each developer shall be
required to provide an updated land use matrix illustrating maximum land
use square footages in compliance with Appendix A2. Land Use
Assumptions for Street Master Plan. Amendments to increase these
established land use assumptions may be administered through a PUD
Minor Amendment and shall require an updated Traffic Impact Analysis
incorporating the increased assumptions.
d.
Page 16, Section 3.2 Land Uses Per Development Unit, Permitted Land
Uses, Development Units 2, 3, 4A: Add the following bullet point:
• Hospitals
o Minimum 100 inpatient beds required.
e.
Page 21, Section 3.2 Land Uses Per Development Unit, Permitted Land
Uses, Development Units 9A, 9B, and 10: Add a sub-bullet point under
“Multifamily” as follows:
Only permitted if building permits for a resort have not been issued within
three years of the dedication of Gila Foothills Parkway and no sooner than
five years after the adoption of the PUD.
f.
Page 21, Section 3.2 Land Uses Per Development Unit, Permitted Land
Uses, Development Unit 9B: Modify the third bullet point to “Alcohol sales
as an accessory use.”
g.
Page 25, Section 3.3 Roadway Circulation, 51st Avenue: Remove all
reference to “half-street improvements” and modify to “full limits” of 51st
Avenue.
h.
Page 28, Section 3.3 Roadway Circulation, Exhibit 11 – Conceptual Trail
Plan: Modify to show the MUT on the south and west sides of Gila
Foothills Parkway.
i.
Page 28, Section 3.3 Roadway Circulation, Exhibit 11 – Conceptual Trail
Plan: Remove “or Planned” from the legend heading.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 29 of 34
j.
Page 39, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 1: Building Setbacks: Add a row to the end of the table for the
Property Line shared with South Mountain Park; and require a 25-foot
setback for Development Units 9A, 9B, and 10.
k.
Page 41, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 3: Landscape Buffers, 47th Avenue: Switch the provisions for
Development Units 9A and 9B.
l.
Page 41, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 3: Landscape Buffers: Add a row to the end of the table for the
Property Line shared with South Mountain Park, and require a 25-foot
buffer for Development Units 9A, 9B, and 10. Also add a footnote to see
the South Mountain Perimeter Zone provisions on pages 64 and 95.
m.
Page 42, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 5: Building Step Backs, Gila Foothills Parkway and 51st Ave: Switch
the provisions for Development Unit 6.
n.
Page 42, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 5: Building Step Backs: Add the following to the end of Footnote (3):
An additional foot of height will be allowed for every two additional feet of
setback.
o.
Page 43, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 6: Miscellaneous, Maximum Residential Density: Add Footnote (2)
to Development Unit 2.
p.
Page 43, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 6: Miscellaneous: Delete the row for Maximum Number of Units.
q.
Page 43, Section 4. Development Standards, Miscellaneous Table,
Parking Standards, first bullet: Add “model” to the end.
r.
Page 43, Section 4. Development Standards, Miscellaneous Table,
Parking Standards, fourth bullet: Remove “not to exceed 10 chargers.”
s.
Page 43, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 6: Miscellaneous, Footnotes: Modify the end of Footnote (1) to add
the following:
Additional review and approval is required for the additional 500 units per
Z-53-22-8 stipulation.
t.
Page 43, Section 4. Development Standards, Development Standards
Table 6: Miscellaneous, Footnotes, add Footnote (6) that states the
following and apply it to Development Units 9A, 9B, and 10:
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 30 of 34
Additional review and approval is required for any multifamily
development that is not associated with a resort per Z-53-22-8 stipulation.
u.
Page 45, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards,
Landscape Standards Table 1: Landscape Setbacks: Update title to
Landscape Standards Table 1: Landscape Plant Types.
v.
Page 46, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards,
Landscape Standards Table 2: Enhanced Streetscape R.O.W Planting:
Modify the title to “Landscape Standards Table 2: Enhanced Streetscape
R.O.W. Planting and Public Shade Standards”.
w.
Page 46, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards Table
2: Enhanced Streetscape R.O.W Planting: Revise sidewalk shading to
show all sidewalk shading in the Hub Character Area to no less than 50%.
x.
Page 46, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards Table
2: Enhanced Streetscape R.O.W Planting, Notes, fifth bullet (Shade
Pockets): Add the following as a sub-bullet point:
o All public sidewalks adjacent to Automobile Dealership, Automobile
Retail Sales, and Automobile Rental: A minimum 25% shade is
required along sidewalk areas located between shade pockets.
Overall shade coverage shall equal a total of 50% inclusive of
shade pockets and the intermittent areas between shade pockets.
All other uses within the HUB character area shall require a
minimum 75% shade of public sidewalks.
y.
Page 46, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards Table
2: Enhanced Streetscape R.O.W Planting: Add a note as follows:
Upon redevelopment of a site formerly used for Automobile Dealership,
Automobile Retail Sales, or Automobile Rental into Non-Automobile
Dealership, Automobile Retail Sales, or Automobile Rental, right-of-way
landscaping and shade requirements shall meet the 75% shade standard.
z.
Page 46-47, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards
Table 2: Enhanced Streetscape R.O.W Planting: Add a footnote to apply
to all provisions for medians as follows:
All modified median landscaping deviating from City of Phoenix standard
landscape requirements shall be privately maintained and identified on the
approved master street plan and associated plats.
aa.
Page 47, Section 4. Development Standards, Landscape Standards Table
2: Enhanced Streetscape R.O.W Planting: Add a footnote to apply to
Development Units 3, 6, and 4A as follows:
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 31 of 34
51st Avenue is located within Maricopa County jurisdiction. Any street
improvements or landscaping on 51st Avenue are subject to the review
and approval of Maricopa County.
bb.
Page 50, Section 5. Signage, Off Premise Signage: Update the end of the
second bullet point as follows:
…design to be presented for review and comment to the Laveen Village
Planning Committee.
cc.
Page 52, Section 6. Sustainability: Add a provision for recycling as the last
bullet point.
dd.
Page 57, Section 7. Complete Streets, Design for Safety: Remove the
second and third paragraphs.
ee.
Page 95, Foothills Character Area, 2.3 Landscaping, j. Perimeter
Treatments, South Mountain Perimeter Treatment: Delete the last
paragraph.
ff.
Page 103, The District Character Area, 3.1 Site and Building Design, 2.
Circulation: Remove Section 2.b.
gg.
Page 142, The Hub Character Area, 2. Circulation, C. Street Design and
Landscape Character, Shade Pockets: Update Exhibit H9 to reflect the
minimum 25% shade along sidewalk areas between shade pockets and
overall shade coverage to total 50% and all uses within the HUB to a
minimum 75% shade as required by Stipulation No. 1.y.
hh.
Page 143, The Hub Character Area, 2. Circulation, C. Street Design and
Landscape Character, Shade Pockets, Conceptual Shade Pocket Detail
A, B1, and B2: Update Detail A, B1, and B2 to reflect the required shading
requirements per Stipulation No. 1.y.
ii.
Update all exhibits to include the 55th Avenue connection from the
existing northern stub to Estrella Avenue.
jj.
Submit legal descriptions for all development units as an appendix to the
PUD narrative.
2.
Where additional review and approval is required in the PUD narrative related to
the additional 500 residential dwelling units granted with the construction of a
hospital and any multifamily development in Development Units 9A, 9B, and 10,
that is not associated with a resort, conceptual site plans, elevations, and
landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer
through the public hearing process, including review by Laveen Village Planning
Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is a legislative review for
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 32 of 34
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements will
be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and
Development Department.
3.
A Master Density Tracking Matrix shall be provided and updated on all site plan
submittals to track the number of units within the PUD area.
4.
The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to the City for this
development and update the existing Tierra Montana Master Street Plans
associated with the Segment Two development area. The TIA shall be submitted
to ADOT and MCDOT for interagency review. No preliminary approval of plans
shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved by the City.
5.
The developer shall update the existing Tierra Montana Master Street Plan for
inclusion of Segment Two network. Phasing sheet to be updated to include
roadway networks to be completed by Segment Two development within existing
Segment One as per the required updated Traffic Impact Analysis. Roadways
located within Segment two that are not under the jurisdiction of the City of
Phoenix shall require review and approval with the corresponding jurisdiction.
6.
The developer shall design and install, at their expense, traffic signals and or
roundabouts at locations approved by the TIA and updated Master Street Plan.
The developer shall be responsible for the construction and/or escrow
contribution, as approved by the TIA and Master Street Plans. Stipulation subject
to change based on TIA comments for signal location evaluation and funding
responsibility.
7.
The developer shall dedicate and construct roadway, paving, curb, gutter,
detached sidewalk, traffic signal infrastructure, and other necessary incidentals
for all arterial and collector roadways as per the approved TIA and Master Street
Plan.
8.
The developer shall provide access control at locations in accordance with the
City’s Design Standards Manual and/or as approved per the Master Street Plan.
9.
The full limits of 51st Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed north of Estrella
Drive to Carver Road, per the cross-section approved in the master street plan.
10. The full limits of 51st Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed south of
Estrella Drive, as approved by Maricopa County. Should 51st Avenue be
annexed into the City of Phoenix, right-of-way dedications and improvements
shall be required to meet City of Phoenix standards.
11. Right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the west side of 47th
Avenue, as required by the approved master street plans.
12. A minimum 60-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the full
limits of 55th Avenue.
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 33 of 34
13. All modified median landscaping deviating from City of Phoenix standard
landscape requirements shall be privately maintained and identified on the
approved master street plan and associated plats.
14. A minimum 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated on
the east side of 51st Avenue, south of Estrella Drive. Construction of the multi-
use trail shall be to City standards.
15. A minimum 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated on
the north side of Estrella Drive. Construction of the multi-use trail shall be to City
standards.
16. A minimum 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated on
the south and west sides of Gila Foothills Parkway, as depicted on Exhibit 11 –
Conceptual Trail Plan. Construction of the multi-use trail shall be to City
standards.
17. A minimum 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated on
the north side of 55th Avenue, connecting to 51st Avenue. Construction of the
multi-use trail shall be to City standards.
18. The developer shall convey land, if necessary, located at the end of Gila
Foothills Parkway as a trailhead to South Mountain Preserve, as modified and
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department and Planning and
Development Department. The final acreage and configuration of the property to
be conveyed, along with timing of the conveyance, shall be mutually agreed
upon by the developer, the Parks and Recreation Department, and Planning and
Development Department.
19. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City regarding
the location and construction of a parking lot for the trailhead at the end of Gila
Foothills Parkway, as approved or modified by the Parks and Recreation
Department and Planning and Development Department.
20. The developer shall underground existing electrical utilities within the public right-
of-way that are impacted or require relocation, excluding 69kv or larger, as part
of this project. The developer shall coordinate with the affected utility companies
for their review and permitting.
21. Existing irrigation facilities along all public streets are to be undergrounded and
relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights
and establish the appropriate process to relocate the facility. Relocations that
require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to
obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval, or as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
22. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
Staff Report: Z-53-22-8
February 12, 2024
Page 34 of 34
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
23. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
24. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
25. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
26. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
February 12, 2024
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Gila Foothills PUD Narrative date stamped February 1, 2024
Correspondence (59 pages)
Z-110-06
ANX 366
Z-170-04
Z-63-07
ANX 388
Z-169-04
ANX 312
Z-63-07
ANX 312
ANX 347
Z-112-05
Z-170-04
Z-72-22
ANX 312
Z-170-04
ANX 388
ANX 311
ANX 312
MARICOPA
RESERVATION
COUNTY
GILA
*
RIVER
*
*
INDIAN
S-1
S-1
S-1
S-1
COUNTY
RE-35
PUD
RE-35
MARICOPA
S-1
HP
S-1
S-1
S-1
RH/R1-10
PCD *
Z-109-05
C-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-18 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-3A PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-18 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-05
S-1 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-3 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-10 PCD *
Z-109-05
S-1 *
Z-110-06
R1-6 *
Z-97-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-10 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-6 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-18 *
Z-97-05
R1-18 *
Z-124-06
LA GRANGE DR
56TH LN
52ND LN
53RD AVE
51ST DR
ROUNDHOUSE RD
45TH AVE
TOP HAND TRL
SWEET PEA TER
51ST AVE
KERESAN ST
45TH DR
DUSTY LN
ESTRELLA DR
CARVER RD
v
w
202
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
BROADWAY RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTHERN AVE
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
ESTRELLA DR
LAVEEN VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-53-22
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
288.63 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
S-1, S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-3 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R-3A PCD), S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD), S-1 (Approved R1-18 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD), S-1 (Approved RH/R1-10 PCD)
PUD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
2, 27 (394), 40 (407), 3 (55),
5 (111), 9 (33), 76 (149),
50 (216), 73 (1468/257)
2200
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A, N/A (473), N/A (489), N/A (67),
N/A (133), N/A (43), N/A (178),
N/A (276), N/A (N/A/330)
N/A
RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture
DATE:
10/27/2022
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 06-16, QS 07-17,
QS 07-16, QS 08-17
ZONING MAP
B-5, B-6
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: S-1 ( 2.17 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD) ( 27.20 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) ( 40.77 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R-3 PCD) ( 3.84 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R-3A PCD) ( 5.04 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD) ( 9.58 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R1-18 PCD) ( 76.33 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) ( 50.30 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved RH/R1-10 PCD) ( 73.40 a.c.)
TO:
PUD ( 288.63 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-53-22.mxd
Z-53-22
0.2
0
0.2
0.1
Miles
1/24/2024
Z-110-06
ANX 366
Z-170-04
Z-63-07
ANX 388
Z-169-04
ANX 312
Z-63-07
ANX 312
ANX 347
Z-112-05
Z-170-04
Z-72-22
ANX 312
Z-170-04
ANX 388
ANX 311
ANX 312
MARICOPA
RESERVATION
COUNTY
GILA
*
RIVER
*
*
INDIAN
S-1
S-1
S-1
S-1
COUNTY
RE-35
PUD
RE-35
MARICOPA
S-1
HP
S-1
S-1
S-1
RH/R1-10
PCD *
Z-109-05
C-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-18 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-3A PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-18 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-05
S-1 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-3 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-10 PCD *
Z-109-05
S-1 *
Z-110-06
R1-6 *
Z-97-05
R-2 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-10 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-6 PCD *
Z-109-05
R1-18 *
Z-97-05
R1-18 *
Z-124-06
LA GRANGE DR
56TH LN
52ND LN
53RD AVE
51ST DR
ROUNDHOUSE RD
45TH AVE
TOP HAND TRL
SWEET PEA TER
51ST AVE
KERESAN ST
45TH DR
DUSTY LN
ESTRELLA DR
CARVER RD
v
w
202
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
BROADWAY RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTHERN AVE
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
ESTRELLA DR
LAVEEN VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-53-22
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
288.63 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
S-1, S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-3 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R-3A PCD), S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD), S-1 (Approved R1-18 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD), S-1 (Approved RH/R1-10 PCD)
PUD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
2, 27 (394), 40 (407), 3 (55),
5 (111), 9 (33), 76 (149),
50 (216), 73 (1468/257)
2200
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A, N/A (473), N/A (489), N/A (67),
N/A (133), N/A (43), N/A (178),
N/A (276), N/A (N/A/330)
N/A
RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture
DATE:
10/27/2022
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 06-16, QS 07-17,
QS 07-16, QS 08-17
ZONING MAP
B-5, B-6
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: S-1 ( 2.17 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved C-2 PCD) ( 27.20 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) ( 40.77 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R-3 PCD) ( 3.84 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R-3A PCD) ( 5.04 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD) ( 9.58 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R1-18 PCD) ( 76.33 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) ( 50.30 a.c.)
S-1 (Approved RH/R1-10 PCD) ( 73.40 a.c.)
TO:
PUD ( 288.63 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-53-22.mxd
Z-53-22
0.2
0
0.2
0.1
Miles
1/24/2024
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: OPPOSED NEIGHBOR COMMENT AND FEEDBACK - Z-53-22- 1st Submittal Gila Foothills PUD
Applicant's Narrative, 8 Laveen Southeast corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road
From: Wayne Harrison <whguitar@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 8:14 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>
Cc: Erin Harrison <erinalice71@gmail.com>; kmw@berryriddell.com; kbarichello@rviplanning.com;
wr@berryriddell.com; jamie@lokahigroup.com; mupton@enterprisecapitalllc.com; weslinesdevco@gmail.com;
reid@butlerhousing.com; Steve Bowser <sb@hxeng.com>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; PDD Long
Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>
Subject: OPPOSED NEIGHBOR COMMENT AND FEEDBACK ‐ Z‐53‐22‐ 1st Submittal Gila Foothills PUD Applicant's
Narrative, 8 Laveen Southeast corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road
Thank you for your response, Nayeli.
I would like to be added to the mailing list for communications related to this case. I am copying the applicant's project
team on this email so they will have my comments and feedback so they can rethink and redesign the proposal with
community stakeholder involvement. I ask you to please include my comments in your official public comment
record for this case.
My family and I live in the Tierra Montana neighborhood very close to the proposed rezoning for development and am
very concerned about this first application for proposed rezoning and I strongly oppose this first application in its current
form.
I attended the neighborhood Zoom meeting and presentation by the project proponent/applicant last night (Oct 27,
5:30‐6:30PM) and there were about 40‐50 concerned neighbors who gave comments about their specific concerns.
I noticed that unfortunately there was no staff from the City in attendance to hear us voice our concerns and comments.
I reviewed both the applicant website [gilafoothillspud.com] information and the PROJECT NARRATIVE 1ST SUBMITTAL:
JUNE 29TH, 2022.
My concerns and feedback follow.
Concerns
There are an abundance of valid concerns the neighborhood shares about this first application proposal.
In short, the rezoning densities and proposed allowable uses do NOT fit the rural character of the area and needs a
complete redesign.
We are very concerned about the many potentially significant negative impacts this project will have on our lives and
neighborhood.
I hope you will get to hear and address our concerns in a future forum early in the review process so this first application
does not advance too far before it gets a complete overhaul to mitigate all the neighborhood concerns.
No real amenities that serve the community and its families (we need to think way beyond the trailhead idea)
Light pollution
Noise Pollution
Undesirable Visual Impacts ‐ obstruction of the mountain views of both South Mountain and the Sierra Estrellas
(Komatke). We moved here to enjoy the unobstructed mountain views.
Density too high for the area
Commercial too close to homes and the school children
Traffic Impacts
Increased Crime Impacts
2
Undesirable and out of character for the area:
o
AutoMall (light, noise, traffic) Our community doesn't want it, doesn't need it. It's not an amenity that
benefits us‐‐it's a significant negative impact. We don't care about the 10‐mile radius showing a 'need'
for a car dealership. That's not our problem.
o
Truck Stop (light, noise, traffic) Our community doesn't want it, doesn't need it. It's not an amenity that
benefits us‐‐it's a significant negative impact. Why would we need or want a Truck Stop with trucks
running engines day and night?
o
Resort (light, noise, traffic, viewshed of South Mountain Hillside areas)
o
Large, high digital LED billboards signs (Light Pollution obstructing our views of the Estrellas, and the
dark night sky)
Requests:
Only allow restricted land uses that serve the actual stated needs and desires of the local affected village
community members, not minority outside commercial interests.
NO LED billboard signs
NO automall
NO truck stop or gas stations
NO high buildings higher than surrounding homes.
Light restrictions
Noise restrictions
NO resort (what resident or resort goer wants to look down on a automall and truck stop?!).
NO hillside development on South Mountain
NO TimeShare Resorts
Community desired amenities only ‐ involve community input, have an in person listening session to hear what
the community wants and needs to shape the design plan.
Pedestrian connectivity: Connectivity of trails from Tierra Montana to the south mountain network is not
proposed or well defined. I would like to see full connections from Tierra Montana greenways and paths and
trails to the south mountain trail network.
Please help make it possible for this to be a walking village from the residential to the commercial area so we
can choose to walk to the grocery store, brewery, cafe, coffee shop, store or restaurant.
Create open space and recreational Buffers and greenbelts around the existing Tierra Montana homes to
separate and offset the commercial areas
The roads here are bad as it is without adding traffic loads. 51st and Estrella is a bad intersection, and the roads
are in poor condition with alligator cracks and potholes.
The interchange at 202 and Estrella was not designed to handle the high traffic impacts proposed in this first
application, especially the high volume of tractor trailers at a Truck Stop.
Why not ask the community what commercial uses we want? We were not consulted and the applicant did a
poor job in due diligence in this aspect of community input.
Why wasnt a police station, city park, openspace, multipurpose trails, or a grocery store proposed in the use
alternatives? Ask the community what they actually want!
Alternatives Analysis: what range of other alternatives plans and uses have been considered? We should be able
to select from several alternatives to find the best one for the community.
Consultation with tribal councils and land acknowledgments for affected tribes, whose traditional lands these
are, whose ancestors cared for this land and cultivated it, which we enjoy today. As masters of the land, we
should respectfully seek their ancient wisdom and input as past caretakers and our current neighbors.
Require the applicant to submit Impact studies for NOISE, AIR, TRAFFIC, CRIME, VIEWSHED, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, WATER AVAILABILITY, WASTEWATER connection capacity
Recreational opportunity studies to shape alternatives
Amenities such as a Village and Neighborhood clubhouse community area with community pool and
recreational sport courts and fields, to replace some of the commercial zoned areas next to the existing tierra
montana residences. Good example of this is AVANCE [tripointehomes.com]
Perhaps a LifeTime Fitness Center and Spa with connected walking paths to access from the existing Tierra
Montana residential areas, We are far from the nearest Lifetime location. They are great facilities.
3
Does the City WASTEWATER treatment plant have the capacity to handle the new increase in proposed
connections?
Can the existing sewer infrastructure handle the increased throughput in capacity required to convey the
sewage?
o
As a result of poorly planned, uncontrolled growth and lack of WW treatment infrastructure, several
other areas in the Valley are experiencing a severe lack of WW treatment capacity and it results in Sewer
System Overflows (SSOs) from manholes and lift stations leading to sewage flowing in the streets.
Sewage capacity needs to be determined with input from the latest census figures on the number of people per
household (PPH). I think it's around 3.5 pph right now, and many WW treatment plants in Phoenix were built
to only handle 2.5 people per household, which leads to a lack of actual capacity and SSO problems and odors.
See what happened in the east Valley area, San Tan, Johnson Ranch, Johnson utilities [google.com] service areas
when development is too fast for WW treatment infrastructure to keep up with the increase in flows and
capacity needs of a service area‐‐DISASTER. Capacity issues are facing the Luke AFB area too near the 303.
Where will the sewage from this development go and to which receiving plant, and does that plant have enough
ADEQ‐approved actual capacity to handle full build‐out of this proposed rezoning? Check with ADEQ on capacity
issues to confirm.
Do the sewer main lines and lift stations between here and there have enough capacity to handle all the
proposed development?
Conclusion
The negatives of this proposal far outweigh the 'benefits' of this first application submittal. It is not a good fit for this
family neighborhood area.
It is sadly apparent the applicant did not conduct meaningful pre‐application due diligence to understand the
community interests, needs and desires, but was myopically focused on their own financial self‐interest.
Please imagine how angry you would feel if you finally invested a good portion your life savings for 35 years on a down
payment for $400‐500k dream home in a lovely rural village with beautiful views and dark skies and now a proposed
rezoning effort threatens to place you right next to an automall and a truck stop with all the lights and billboards
obstructing your Estrella mountain views! How discouraging and distressing that would be for you and your family. If I
wanted that I would have chosen to live along the I‐10 freeway in Avondale or Eloy. But I hate that so I didnt. I chose this
rural village for its unique character. If I want to buy an electric car someday, I will gladly drive the 15‐20 minutes to the
location of an automall somewhere like Peoria, Avondale or Tempe. We don't need or want an automall or a truck stop
or flashy billboards in our quiet community.
I ask for your empathy and human compassion as you perform your review and decision‐making. And please do
everything in your power and review authority to not let this unimaginative and insulting first application go forward as‐
is and allow it to negatively and irreparably alter the lovely rural neighborhood character of our Village. Please send it
back to the applicant for a complete and thorough redesign with real meaningful community stakeholder engagement
to incorporate community interests and amenities into its redesign. As a Village Planner you have a unique
opportunity to serve the families of Gila Foothills PUD area and truly approve something of character, beauty, and
harmony in the community that can be an excellent example of mutual success. This first application is not it. I
encourage you to use your courage to set aside any political pressure you may face to approve this quickly, and please
send this back to address our many concerns and meet the needs of the Village we love.
Thank you.
Wayne Harrison
Tierra Montana resident
5402 W Sweet Pea Terrace, Laveen, AZ 85339
480‐406‐8582
whguitar@gmail.com
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Gila Foothills PUD Concerns
From: Kailee Oines <keoines@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:11 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Re: Gila Foothills PUD Concerns
Here is the new proposal.
> On Nov 2, 2022, at 7:01 PM, Kailee Oines <keoines@gmail.com> wrote:
2
>
> Hello,
> My name is Kailee Oines. My husband and I are new homeowners in the Tierra Montana Community in Laveen (cross
streets Elliot and 51st).
>
> I am writing to you to express my concerns and certain disapprovals of the proposed Gila foothills PUD. My neighbors
and I have discussed this at length and we thought we would bring a couple of things to your attention. Our primary
concern with this new plan is the municipalities and their infrastructure.
>
> One of our main concerns is safety within our community. The new developments going up, currently, in Laveen are
bringing in higher dollar builds. I would assume when we start talking about resort living, resort housing, and other
general residential areas that those homes/living situations will likely be in the same boat of an increased base price to
build. Add to that the potential car dealership and all of the commercial businesses projected to come into the area, we
are creating the opportunity for the likeliness of crime to increase. The cherry on top is that the car dealerships
customers will likely be test driving in/near neighborhoods increasing the probability of an automotive accident. Do we
have the infrastructure to patrol these areas more regularly, since right now most are fields that our community
protectors don't need to keep as close of an eye on? The reason I ask is because a common discussion on our social
media groups is the crime and lack of police presence at 51st and Baseline. If we can't keep track of one major
intersection, how do we plan to maintain, protect, and prevent crime in the communities surrounding ALL of the
intersections in this proposal? Do we have the ability to promptly respond if there is a multi unit safety concern or will
we be waiting longer for safety vehicles to arrive because they were helping resolve another incident?
>
> I understand the idea behind adding car dealerships in any area. Added revenue, higher tax dollars, easy money to go
back into our community. However, I also know firsthand how negative reviews and an unsupportive community can
decrease the ability for any business to earn revenue, let alone one that relies on positive interactions and word of
mouth promotions. If people don't want a car dealership in their backyard, they will not be shopping there and they will
fight and push back along the way to make sure no one else wants to shop there as well. I am all for increased revenue
and tax dollars in our area but I think we need to approach this a little smarter. Bad reviews means bad business means
lower income means struggling businesses. We want the businesses brought to our community to succeed and
potentially find a forever home.
>
> Our final concern is one that hits home the hardest with our community. I think we can all agree we live in a beautiful
space with scenic views and a population that wants to keep everything that way. All of the signs, entrances to the
communities, and general areas of Laveen are typically well maintained and colorful. One of the reasons I moved here is
the views of the mountains. Simply breathtaking to be able to wake up to that every morning. We understand the
appeal of adding a resort ‐ it will definitely do well in our area! However, when you start building tall residential or
commercial structures we will be left like every other town where there are mountains somewhere in the distance but
we can't quite see them. I also wonder if these taller residential and commercial buildings might interfere with the
views for the proposed resort. Resort to me usually means golf course. Do you want to go golfing with businesses all
around blocking your views or do you want to feel like you are teeing off into the mountains?
>
> I have spent some time taking my discussions with my neighbors, and the discussions at the developers public hearing
I attended, and have created an alternative proposal to the one provided. We all want to see our community be better,
but we want to do that the right way. I think a compromise that allows the residents to keep their views, businesses to
be welcomed by happy customers, and the infrastructure to support change will be better for everyone.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read this email and take into consideration my family’s concerns.
>
> ‐Kailee Oines
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Proposed Gila Foothills PUD concerns
From: Kim Roberts <write.kim.roberts@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:53 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Council
District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>; Kim Roberts
<write.kim.roberts@gmail.com>
Subject: Proposed Gila Foothills PUD concerns
Hello,
I am writing to you to express my concerns and disapproval of the proposed Gila foothills PUD. My neighbors and I have
discussed this at length and we thought we would bring a couple of things to your attention. Our primary concern with
this new plan is the municipalities and their infrastructure. The first and forefront is the question: does Laveen have the
ability to expand their water supply and sewage to the extent needed for this project?
Along with this comes the idea of safety within our community. The new developments going up, currently, in Laveen
are bringing in some "higher dollar" builds. I would assume when we start talking about resort living, resort housing, and
other general residential areas that those homes/living situations will likely be in the same boat of an increased base
price to build. Add to that the potential car dealership and all of the commercial businesses projected to come into the
area, we are creating the opportunity for the likeliness of crime to increase. The cherry on top is that the car dealerships
customers will likely be test driving in/near neighborhoods increasing the probability of an automotive accident. Do we
have the infrastructure to patrol these areas more regularly, since right now most are fields that our community
protectors don't need to keep as close of an eye on? The reason I ask is because a common discussion on our social
media groups is the crime and lack of police presence at 51st and Baseline. If we can't keep track of one major
intersection, how do we plan to maintain, protect, and prevent crime in the communities surrounding ALL of the
intersections in this proposal? Do we have the ability to promptly respond if there is a multi unit safety concern or will
we be waiting longer for safety vehicles to arrive because they were helping resolve another incident?
I understand the idea behind adding car dealerships in any area. Added revenue, higher tax dollars, easy money to go
back into our community. However, I also know firsthand how negative reviews and an unsupportive community can
decrease the ability for any business to earn revenue, let alone one that relies on positive interactions and word of
mouth promotions. If people don't want a car dealership in their backyard, they will not be shopping there and they will
fight and push back along the way to make sure no one else wants to shop there as well. I am all for increased revenue
and tax dollars in our area but I think we need to approach this a little smarter. Bad reviews means bad business means
lower income means struggling businesses. We want the businesses brought to our community to succeed and
potentially find a forever home.
Our final concern is one that hits home the hardest with our community. I think we can all agree we live in a beautiful
space with scenic views and a population that wants to keep everything that way. All of the signs, entrances to the
communities, and general areas of Laveen are typically well maintained and colorful. One of the reasons I moved here is
the views of the mountains. Simply breathtaking to be able to wake up to that every morning. We understand the
appeal of adding a resort ‐ it will definitely do well in our area! However, when you start building tall residential or
commercial structures we will be left like every other town where there are mountains somewhere in the distance but
we can't quite see them. I also wonder if these taller residential and commercial buildings might interfere with the views
2
for the proposed resort. Resort to me usually means golf course. Do you want to go golfing with businesses all around
blocking your views or do you want to feel like you are teeing off into the mountains?
I have spent some time taking my discussions with my neighbors, and the discussions at the Developers public hearing I
attended, and have created an alternative proposal to the one provided. I understand this is a very different idea than
the proposal. We all want to see our community be better, but we want to do that the right way. I think a compromise
that allows the residents to keep their views, businesses to be welcomed by happy customers, and the infrastructure to
support change will be better for everyone.
I appreciate your time in reading and considering my views.
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Laveen Development
From: Alondra Gallegos <a.gallegos0525@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 8:13 AM
To: Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>;
PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Laveen Development
Hello,
I am writing to you to express my concerns and disapproval of the proposed Gila foothills PUD. My neighbors and I have
discussed this at length and we thought we would bring a couple of things to your attention. Our primary concern with
this new plan is the municipalities and their infrastructure. The first and forefront is the question: does Laveen have the
ability to expand their water supply and sewage to the extent needed for this project?
Along with this comes the idea of safety within our community. The new developments going up, currently, in Laveen
are bringing in some "higher dollar" builds. I would assume when we start talking about resort living, resort housing,
and other general residential areas that those homes/living situations will likely be in the same boat of an increased base
price to build. Add to that the potential car dealership and all of the commercial businesses projected to come into the
area, we are creating the opportunity for the likeliness of crime to increase. The cherry on top is that the car dealerships
customers will likely be test driving in/near neighborhoods increasing the probability of an automotive accident. Do we
have the infrastructure to patrol these areas more regularly, since right now most are fields that our community
protectors don't need to keep as close of an eye on? The reason I ask is because a common discussion on our social
media groups is the crime and lack of police presence at 51st and Baseline. If we can't keep track of one major
intersection, how do we plan to maintain, protect, and prevent crime in the communities surrounding ALL of the
intersections in this proposal? Do we have the ability to promptly respond if there is a multi unit safety concern or will
we be waiting longer for safety vehicles to arrive because they were helping resolve another incident?
I understand the idea behind adding car dealerships in any area. Added revenue, higher tax dollars, easy money to go
back into our community. However, I also know firsthand how negative reviews and an unsupportive community can
decrease the ability for any business to earn revenue, let alone one that relies on positive interactions and word of
mouth promotions. If people don't want a car dealership in their backyard, they will not be shopping there and they will
fight and push back along the way to make sure no one else wants to shop there as well. I am all for increased revenue
and tax dollars in our area but I think we need to approach this a little smarter. Bad reviews means bad business means
lower income means struggling businesses. We want the businesses brought to our community to succeed and
potentially find a forever home.
Our final concern is one that hits home the hardest with our community. I think we can all agree we live in a beautiful
space with scenic views and a population that wants to keep everything that way. All of the signs, entrances to the
communities, and general areas of Laveen are typically well maintained and colorful. One of the reasons I moved here is
the views of the mountains. Simply breathtaking to be able to wake up to that every morning. We understand the
appeal of adding a resort ‐ it will definitely do well in our area! However, when you start building tall residential or
commercial structures we will be left like every other town where there are mountains somewhere in the distance but
we can't quite see them. I also wonder if these taller residential and commercial buildings might interfere with the
views for the proposed resort. Resort to me usually means golf course. Do you want to go golfing with businesses all
around blocking your views or do you want to feel like you are teeing off into the mountains?
I have spent some time taking my discussions with my neighbors, and the discussions at the Developers public hearing I
attended, and have created an alternative proposal to the one provided. I understand this is a very different idea than
2
the proposal. We would like the commercial area to be C2 with restriction I.e. no truck stops, billboards, automotive
dealerships, apartments. We all want to see our community be better, but we want to do that the right way. I think a
compromise that allows the residents to keep their views, businesses to be welcomed by happy customers, and the
infrastructure to support change will be better for everyone.
I appreciate your time in reading and considering my views.
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Gila foothills PUD
From: Carol Munge <carolm628@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 9:29 AM
To: Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>
Cc: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Gila foothills PUD
Hello,
I am writing to you to express my concerns and disapproval of the proposed Gila foothills PUD. My neighbors and I have
discussed this at length and we thought we would bring a couple of things to your attention. Our primary concern with
this new plan is the municipalities and their infrastructure. The first and forefront is the question: does Laveen have the
ability to expand their water supply and sewage to the extent needed for this project?
Along with this comes the idea of safety within our community. The new developments going up, currently, in Laveen
are bringing in some "higher dollar" builds. I would assume when we start talking about resort living, resort housing,
and other general residential areas that those homes/living situations will likely be in the same boat of an increased base
price to build. Add to that the potential car dealership and all of the commercial businesses projected to come into the
area, we are creating the opportunity for the likeliness of crime to increase. The cherry on top is that the car dealerships
customers will likely be test driving in/near neighborhoods increasing the probability of an automotive accident. Do we
have the infrastructure to patrol these areas more regularly, since right now most are fields that our community
protectors don't need to keep as close of an eye on? The reason I ask is because a common discussion on our social
media groups is the crime and lack of police presence at 51st and Baseline. If we can't keep track of one major
intersection, how do we plan to maintain, protect, and prevent crime in the communities surrounding ALL of the
intersections in this proposal? Do we have the ability to promptly respond if there is a multi unit safety concern or will
we be waiting longer for safety vehicles to arrive because they were helping resolve another incident?
I understand the idea behind adding car dealerships in any area. Added revenue, higher tax dollars, easy money to go
back into our community. However, I also know firsthand how negative reviews and an unsupportive community can
decrease the ability for any business to earn revenue, let alone one that relies on positive interactions and word of
mouth promotions. If people don't want a car dealership in their backyard, they will not be shopping there and they will
fight and push back along the way to make sure no one else wants to shop there as well. I am all for increased revenue
and tax dollars in our area but I think we need to approach this a little smarter. Bad reviews means bad business means
lower income means struggling businesses. We want the businesses brought to our community to succeed and
potentially find a forever home.
Our final concern is one that hits home the hardest with our community. I think we can all agree we live in a beautiful
space with scenic views and a population that wants to keep everything that way. All of the signs, entrances to the
communities, and general areas of Laveen are typically well maintained and colorful. One of the reasons I moved here is
the views of the mountains. Simply breathtaking to be able to wake up to that every morning. We understand the
appeal of adding a resort ‐ it will definitely do well in our area! However, when you start building tall residential or
commercial structures we will be left like every other town where there are mountains somewhere in the distance but
we can't quite see them. I also wonder if these taller residential and commercial buildings might interfere with the
views for the proposed resort. Resort to me usually means golf course. Do you want to go golfing with businesses all
around blocking your views or do you want to feel like you are teeing off into the mountains?
I have spent some time taking my discussions with my neighbors, and the discussions at the Developers public hearing I
attended, and have created an alternative proposal to the one provided. I understand this is a very different idea than
2
the proposal. We would like the commercial area to be C2 with restriction I.e. no truck stops, billboards, automotive
dealerships, apartments. We all want to see our community be better, but we want to do that the right way. I think a
compromise that allows the residents to keep their views, businesses to be welcomed by happy customers, and the
infrastructure to support change will be better for everyone.
I appreciate your time in reading and considering my views.
Regards Carol
"It always seems impossible until it's done" Nelson Mandela
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Gila Foothills
From: Liz Hosmer <lizhosmer@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 11:57 AM
To: Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>;
Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Gila Foothills
Good Afternoon,
I am writing to you to express my concerns and disapproval of the proposed Gila foothills PUD. My neighbors and I
have discussed this at length and we thought we would bring a couple of things to your attention. Our primary
concern with this new plan is the municipalities and their infrastructure. The first and forefront is the question:
does Laveen have the ability to expand their water supply and sewage to the extent needed for this project?
Along with this comes the idea of safety within our community. The new developments going up, currently, in
Laveen are bringing in some "higher dollar" builds. I would assume when we start talking about resort living, resort
housing, and other general residential areas that those homes/living situations will likely be in the same boat of an
increased base price to build. Add to that the potential car dealership and all of the commercial businesses
projected to come into the area, we are creating the opportunity for the likeliness of crime to increase. The cherry
on top is that the car dealerships customers will likely be test driving in/near neighborhoods increasing the
probability of an automotive accident. Do we have the infrastructure to patrol these areas more regularly, since
right now most are fields that our community protectors don't need to keep as close of an eye on? The reason I ask
is because a common discussion on our social media groups is the crime and lack of police presence at 51st and
Baseline. If we can't keep track of one major intersection, how do we plan to maintain, protect, and prevent crime
in the communities surrounding ALL of the intersections in this proposal? Do we have the ability to promptly
respond if there is a multi unit safety concern or will we be waiting longer for safety vehicles to arrive because they
were helping resolve another incident?
I understand the idea behind adding car dealerships in any area. Added revenue, higher tax dollars, easy money to
go back into our community. However, I also know firsthand how negative reviews and an unsupportive
community can decrease the ability for any business to earn revenue, let alone one that relies on positive
interactions and word of mouth promotions. If people don't want a car dealership in their backyard, they will not
be shopping there and they will fight and push back along the way to make sure no one else wants to shop there as
well. I am all for increased revenue and tax dollars in our area but I think we need to approach this a little smarter.
Bad reviews means bad business means lower income means struggling businesses. We want the businesses
brought to our community to succeed and potentially find a forever home. I never would have purchased my new
build home if I was made aware of this potential future development. This will literally be in my back yard!!!
Our final concern is one that hits home the hardest with our community. I think we can all agree we live in a
beautiful space with scenic views and a population that wants to keep everything that way. All of the signs,
entrances to the communities, and general areas of Laveen are typically well maintained and colorful. One of the
reasons I moved here is the views of the mountains. Simply breathtaking to be able to wake up to that every
morning. We understand the appeal of adding a resort ‐ it will definitely do well in our area! However, when you
start building tall residential or commercial structures we will be left like every other town where there are
mountains somewhere in the distance but we can't quite see them. I also wonder if these taller residential and
commercial buildings might interfere with the views for the proposed resort. Resort to me usually means golf
2
course. Do you want to go golfing with businesses all around blocking your views or do you want to feel like you are
teeing off into the mountains?
I have spent some time taking my discussions with my neighbors, and the discussions at the Developers public
hearing I attended, and have created an alternative proposal to the one provided. I understand this is a very
different idea than the proposal. We would like the commercial area to be C2 with restriction I.e. no truck stops,
billboards, automotive dealerships, apartments. We all want to see our community be better, but we want to do
that the right way. I think a compromise that allows the residents to keep their views, businesses to be welcomed
by happy customers, and the infrastructure to support change will be better for everyone.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hosmer
5320 W. Alta Mesa Ave
Laveen Village, AZ 85339
480‐729‐1450
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Community Reaction to proposed Gila Foothills PUD
From: Ferdaus Hossain <fhossa1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 8:57 PM
To: Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Community Reaction to proposed Gila Foothills PUD
Hello,
I am writing to you to express my concerns and disapproval of the proposed Gila foothills PUD. My neighbors and I
have discussed this at length and we thought we would bring a couple of things to your attention. Our primary
concern with this new plan is the municipalities and their infrastructure. The first and forefront is the question:
does Laveen have the ability to expand their water supply and sewage to the extent needed for this project?
Along with this comes the idea of safety within our community. The new developments going up, currently, in
Laveen are bringing in some "higher dollar" builds. I would assume when we start talking about resort living, resort
housing, and other general residential areas that those homes/living situations will likely be in the same boat of an
increased base price to build. Add to that the potential car dealership and all of the commercial businesses
projected to come into the area, we are creating the opportunity for the likeliness of crime to increase. The cherry
on top is that the car dealerships customers will likely be test driving in/near neighborhoods increasing the
probability of an automotive accident. Do we have the infrastructure to patrol these areas more regularly, since
right now most are fields that our community protectors don't need to keep as close of an eye on? The reason I ask
is because a common discussion on our social media groups is the crime and lack of police presence at 51st and
Baseline. If we can't keep track of one major intersection, how do we plan to maintain, protect, and prevent crime
in the communities surrounding ALL of the intersections in this proposal? Do we have the ability to promptly
respond if there is a multi unit safety concern or will we be waiting longer for safety vehicles to arrive because they
were helping resolve another incident?
I understand the idea behind adding car dealerships in any area. Added revenue, higher tax dollars, easy money to
go back into our community. However, I also know firsthand how negative reviews and an unsupportive
community can decrease the ability for any business to earn revenue, let alone one that relies on positive
interactions and word of mouth promotions. If people don't want a car dealership in their backyard, they will not
be shopping there and they will fight and push back along the way to make sure no one else wants to shop there as
well. I am all for increased revenue and tax dollars in our area but I think we need to approach this a little smarter.
Bad reviews means bad business means lower income means struggling businesses. We want the businesses
brought to our community to succeed and potentially find a forever home.
Our final concern is one that hits home the hardest with our community. I think we can all agree we live in a
beautiful space with scenic views and a population that wants to keep everything that way. All of the signs,
entrances to the communities, and general areas of Laveen are typically well maintained and colorful. One of the
reasons I moved here is the views of the mountains. Simply breathtaking to be able to wake up to that every
morning. We understand the appeal of adding a resort ‐ it will definitely do well in our area! However, when you
start building tall residential or commercial structures we will be left like every other town where there are
mountains somewhere in the distance but we can't quite see them. I also wonder if these taller residential and
commercial buildings might interfere with the views for the proposed resort. Resort to me usually means golf
course. Do you want to go golfing with businesses all around blocking your views or do you want to feel like you are
teeing off into the mountains?
I have spent some time taking my discussions with my neighbors, and the discussions at the Developers public
hearing I attended, and have created an alternative proposal to the one provided. I understand this is a very
2
different idea than the proposal. We would like the commercial area to be C2 with restriction I.e. no truck stops,
billboards, automotive dealerships, apartments. We all want to see our community be better, but we want to do
that the right way. I think a compromise that allows the residents to keep their views, businesses to be welcomed
by happy customers, and the infrastructure to support change will be better for everyone.
I appreciate your time in reading and considering my views.
Sincerely,
Ferdaus Hossain
4412 W Lodge Dr, Laveen, AZ 85339
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Refine case NO. Z53228
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Manzanedo <cmanz365@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 10:05 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Refine case NO. Z53228
I write this letter to inform the city of Phoenix planning and development that i adamantly oppose having
this area rezone to commercial property. The area in question is in and near the rural historic Laveen. The
area boast one of the last remaining horse properties where you can see residents riding their horses. There
are also sheep, goats and cattle that also call this place home. My Wife and I sold our home in Scottsdale
near the historic old town. It was a difficult decision however the traffic was becoming unbearable so we
opted to move. We narrowed our choices to Queen Creek and Laveen. We choose Laveen because we
would be closer to family and because we love Phoenix, being born and raised here. It would be disastrous
if t rezoning was approved. Not only would you bring crime and heavy traffic that would make this area
unlivable. As it is we face issues with traffic off the freeway in this area to begin with. It’s important that
we protect areas such like this, it gives character to our city but it also says that we care about our
communities. Industrial projects such as this belong on our main roads. Baseline, McDowell, Indian School
etc. There are plenty of gas stations and there is a hotel at the casino that boast 500 plus rooms. Please
reject this proposal.
Respectfully,
Carlos manzanedo
6026873777
Sent from my iPhone
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Opposition Letter to Case Number GPA-LV-3-22-8 and Case Number Z-53-22-8
From: Lyn Davis <lyndavis19@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:49 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Opposition Letter to Case Number GPA‐LV‐3‐22‐8 and Case Number Z‐53‐22‐8
November 11, 2022
Item Numbers: 5 and 6
Case Numbers: GPA-LV-3-22-8 (Companion Case Z-53-22-8) and Z-53-22-8 (Companion Case
GPA-LV-3-22-8)
Applicant in Opposition
Lynn Davis
4303 W. Calle Poco, Laveen, AZ 85339
Zoning Hearing: Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:30 PM
Dear Laveen Village Planning Committee,
We the six residents that reside at 4303 W. Calle Poco, Laveen, AZ 85339 strongly OPPOSE and
OBJECT to Item Number 5, Case Number GPA-LV-3-22-8 (Companion Case Z-53-22-8 and Item
Number 6, Case Number Z-53-22-8 (Companion Case GPA-LV-3-22-8, which is a request to amend
the General Plan Land Use Map Designation on approximately 282.36 acres located at the southeast
corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road and a request to rezone approximately 281.49 acres located
at the southeast corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road, because amending and rezoning this area
is in direct violation of the purpose of this District; which is designed to encourage, preserve and
protect the historical, rural, and agricultural character of the area. This proposed development would
destroy the calm and peaceful environment of this residential community of larger lots filled with
majestic trees, flowers, green grass, citrus trees, beloved pets, horses, livestock, poultry, and quiet
moonlit evenings surrounded by natural landscapes.
A truck stop, auto mall, resort, parking garage, and five obtrusive lighted, digital billboards would
overtax the infrastructure of our small, rural Laveen Village with overcrowding population, excessive
pollution from vehicle emissions and diesel from trucks, noise pollution, an increase in crime such as
robbery, theft, drugs, and prostitution, water drainage and sewage issues, an introduction to
unwelcome guests with nefarious intentions to our peaceful community, and a surge in accidents
caused by an influx of vehicles, trucks and 18 wheelers entering and exiting the roads. A proposed
development of this magnitude would usher in the ills and problems of major cities. Laveen Village
would cease to be the warm and welcoming enclave to homebuyers seeking to experience peace,
tranquility, and the wonders of nature; but instead; evolve into a major, overdeveloped metropolitan
city such as New York and Chicago.
Developing the site in this manner will adversely affect the residents; and open the floodgates to other
objectionable, commercial ventures; that will destroy this quiet, peaceful environment, and
surrounding community. Deleterious factors such as overpopulation, traffic congestion,noise and
exhaust pollution, water drainage and sewer issues, traffic accidents, elimination of natural
vegetation, and sweltering temperatures created by concrete, asphalt, glass and steel will be the
2
result of this massive, proposed commercial development. The rural character of Laveen Village will
be compromised if this misaligned venture is allowed to proceed.
Item Number 5, Case Number GPA-LV-3-22-8 (Companion Case Z-53-22-8) and Item Number 6,
Case Number Z-53-22-8 (Companion Case GPA-LV-3-22-8) SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED
because this proposed development would be detrimental to the residents; and the rural and
agricultural character of the area. This ponderous commercial venture is ill-fitted for Laveen Village
and not feasible because the development does not protect or safeguard the community, the
environment, and the public.
Thank You
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Refine case NO Z53228
-----Original Message-----
From: Cathy Manzanedo <cccmanzanedo@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:58 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Refine case NO Z53228
I’m frustrated beyond words. This area was initially zoned for homes and it should stay that way. This is
the last area that homes horses and are frequently riden I’ve lived my entire life here and we don’t need
more foot traffic near million dollar properties. Look no further than 51st ave and Baseline all four corners
have homeless/ druggies begging for money. Building any commercial properties suggested by the
developer would bring this type of problems to this residential area. Say No please!
Cathy A. Manzanedo
6027034605
Sent from my iPhone
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Carol Olson (via Google Docs) <ctolson1743@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 6, 2024 2:55 PM
To:
PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Gila Foothills PUD
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Carol Olson attached a docum ent
Carol Olson (ctolson1743@ gm ail.com ) has attached the follow ing
docum ent:
Untitled docum ent
Snapshot of the item below:
To
Laveen VPC@phoenix.gov
Cc
tom.bilsten@gmail.com
Bcc
bzdel@earthlink.net
Subject
Gila Foothills PUD
Our names are Curt & Carol Olson and we have lived on 5 acres at 4924 West Estrella Drive
since the spring of 1971. We feel fortunate to have experienced Laveen when it was truly a
rural, well kept secret. We always knew there would be changes as the city of Phoenix
continued to grow and extend its boundaries. We have never opposed any of the
developments that have taken place until now. We are wholeheartedly opposed to this
development for so many reasons.
We welcomed the 202 Freeway being built and knew that the parcels bordering them would
probably be developed commercially–no problem. BUT extending the commercial
development East of 51st Avenue is wrong for so many reasons. That parcel is at the base
of South Mountain and should remain as larger parcel single story dwellings, maintaining
one of the few areas in Laveen with larger homesites.
The commercial developments not adjacent to the freeway should be kept in the “core” of
Laveen between Dobbins to Southern.
Putting sculptures on the different corners of 51st Avenue while stacking buildings and
business on every piece of open ground is really no more than a tombstone marker to what
our area use to be.
2
We have met with Reid Butler and Tom Bilsten and listened to their description of what the
development would be like and a real red flag for us is what they are planning to do with
Estrella Drive. Basically they are making us a county cul de sac! They propose moving the
public’s use of Estrella Drive to the south with the exit onto our portion of Estrella Drive
aimed right at our house! When we voiced our concern and suggested they move that
further towards the high power line and away from our dwelling, they led us to believe that
was a good idea, but their latest drawings show that they didn’t listen to a word we
said. This has caused us to be distrustful of this rezoning being classified as a PUD.
This parcel is the southern boundary of Laveen and should remain rural in character.
Google LLC, 1600 Am phitheatre Parkw ay, M ountain View , CA 94043, USA
You have received this em ail because ctolson1743@ gm ail.com shared a
docum ent w ith you from Google Docs.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Google
[google.com]
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Stop the Gila Foothills PUD from Destroying our Neighborbood - Attend the Village Planning
Committee Meeting on Monday, February 12th at 6:30 pm
From: Maria Reagin <laveenresidents@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 7:46 PM
Subject: Stop the Gila Foothills PUD from Destroying our Neighborbood ‐ Attend the Village Planning Committee
Meeting on Monday, February 12th at 6:30 pm
If approved as currently proposed, the Gila Foothills PUD would expand commercial zoning
from current 24 acres adjacent to Loop 202 to the entire 270+ acres encompassing all the alfalfa
fields up to 47th Avenue, and all the vacant land adjacent to Tierra Montana. 18 acres for public
use and 225 acres for single-family residential will be replaced with high-density, multifamily
rentals (up to 1,700 units) plus auto mall, 10 story hospital, business park, and/or any desired
commercial use.
Do you want all of this farmland to become one giant commercial development with auto-
mall, 10 story hospital, giant electronic billboards, business park and any other commercial
use developer desires?
Do you want up to 1,700 high-density apartments, condos, and 5 story rental units this close to
you?
If not, you must attend IN PERSON and make your voice heard, tell all your neighbors to attend
IN PERSON. There is power in numbers and the Laveen Village Planning Committee, and the
City need to know that WE CARE about this.
Commercial development in our residential neighborhood is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE and
MUST NOT be allowed!
HOW YOU CAN HELP & HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD
Attend the Laveen Village Planning Committee IN PERSON and let the
Committee know know you OPPOSE this development and changes to the
General Plan For Land Use at 51st Avenue & Estella Drive.
Bring as many of your neighbors, family, and friends as you can to the
meeting.
When – Monday February 12, 2024 from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm
Location – Laveen Elementary School District #59, Laveen Education Center,
5001 West Dobbins Road. [google.com]
2
Email me at LaveenResidents@yahoo.com and I will send out updates on
future meetings and what you can do to help.
Prepare for the meeing by reading the Developer’s proposal at
phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/Z-53-22 Gila Foothills Narrative.pdf
3
Almost everyone agrees that the City is unable to provide Laveen the resourses it currently
needs. Is is my opinion and the opinion of many of our neighbors that: (1) the propsed Gila
Foothills PUD is another devlopment that is not good for Laveen and will decrease the
quality of life in Laveen; and (2) if inappropriate land use and high density appartments
continue to be green lighted by the City, Laveen CRIME Rates will continue to clime, your
Property Taxes and Insurance Rates will continue to go up, Trafic will get worst, Schools
will become over-crowded, our Parks will continue to be trashed, and there will be more
open Drug Use in Laveen.
If this development is allowed to proceed with inappropriate land use and high density
appartments, it does not appear at this time that the City has any plans of providing Laveen
with additional Law Enforcement and other city service such as building new fire
deparments or building more parks.
HELP STOP
INAPPROPRIATE LAND USE
HIGH DENSITY APPARTMENTS
INCREASED TRAFFIC
RISING CRIME RATE
FALLING PROPERTY VALUES
INREASING INSURANCE RATES
INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES
OVER CROWDING IN SCHOOLS
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
sue friddle <suefriddle@msn.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:14 PM
To:
PDD Laveen VPC; Linda Abegg
Subject:
Gila Foothills PUD
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
My family and I have lived in Laveen at our property on Estrella Drive for 51 years. My husband and I, and our
daughters who are also Laveen residents and whose children spend a great deal of time at our property,
oppose the rezoning request. Our most strenuous objection is to the realignment of Estrella Dr with the
County Lane connection directly in front of the Olsons' residence, as this is just East of our property. We would
prefer Estrella remain a through street. If Estrella must be realigned, we urge the realignment to be placed
under the power lines so as not to pose a hazard to the Olsons and the Eastern side of our property.
We oppose the proposed commercial development, except what has already been approved near the
freeway. We believe all development should be consistent with the character of the community and not allow
for towering apartment buildings, storage facilities, or billboards.
Sincerely,
Sue & John Friddle
602‐237‐4615
To
nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov
Cc
tom.bilsten@gmail.com
Bcc
bzdel@earthlink.net
Subject
Gila Foothills PUD
Our names are Curt & Carol Olson and we have lived on 5 acres at 4924 West Estrella Drive since the
spring of 1971. We feel fortunate to have experienced Laveen when it was truly a rural, well kept
secret. We always knew there would be changes as the city of Phoenix continued to grow and extend
its boundaries. We have never opposed any of the developments that have taken place until now. We
are wholeheartedly opposed to this development for so many reasons.
We welcomed the 202 Freeway being built and knew that the parcels bordering them would probably
be developed commercially–no problem. BUT extending the commercial development East of 51st
Avenue is wrong for so many reasons. That parcel is at the base of South Mountain and should
remain as larger parcel single story dwellings, maintaining one of the few areas in Laveen with larger
homesites.
The commercial developments not adjacent to the freeway should be kept in the “core” of Laveen
between Dobbins to Southern.
Putting sculptures on the different corners of 51st Avenue while stacking buildings and business on
every piece of open ground is really no more than a tombstone marker to what our area use to be.
We have met with Reid Butler and Tom Bilsten and listened to their description of what the
development would be like and a real red flag for us is what they are planning to do with Estrella Drive.
Basically they are making us a county cul de sac! They propose moving the public’s use of Estrella
Drive to the south with the exit onto our portion of Estrella Drive aimed right at our house! When we
voiced our concern and suggested they move that further towards the high power line and away from
our dwelling, they led us to believe that was a good idea, but their latest drawings show that they didn’t
listen to a word we said. This has caused us to be distrustful of this rezoning being classified as a
PUD.
This parcel is the southern boundary of Laveen and should remain rural in character.
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Sheila Lancelotta <slancelotta@comcast.net>
Sent:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 6:47 PM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Cc:
PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
I oppose Gila Foothills General Plan AND Zoning plan
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Reference: GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning).
Please accept my opposition to BOTH the General Plan case (Agenda Item 4) and the Zoning Case
(Agenda Item 5).
I oppose Gila Foothills PUD from expanding the commercial zoning from current 24 acres adjacent to Loop 202 to
the entire 270+ acres encompassing all the alfalfa fields up to 47th Avenue, and all the vacant land adjacent to
Tierra Montana. the 18 acres for public use and 225 acres for single-family residential will be replaced with high-
density, multifamily rentals (up to 2,300 units) plus auto mall, 10 story hospital, business park, and other undesired
commercial use. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE NEED!!!!
The city of Phoenix is responsible for appropriate land use!!!!
Please:
· NO HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS
· Please do on INCREASE THE TRAFFIC
· Please do not contribute to THE RISING CRIME RATE
· PLEAES PROTECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES
· Consider our INSURANCE RATES
· Consider our PROPERTY TAXES
· Consider the OVER CROWDING IN SCHOOLS
I am unable to make the Monday 2.12.24 meeting, but would appreciate my voice being heard.
Link to the meeting agenda is: https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerksite/PublicMeetings/240212002.pdf
Respectfully,
Sheila Lancelotta
7045 W Beverly Rd
Laveen Az 85339
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Opposition to GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning)
From: Maria Reagin <mariacreagin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Opposition to GPA‐LV‐3‐22‐8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z‐53‐22‐8 (Zoning)
Dear Laveen Village Counsel Members,
My name is Maria Reagin and I am a resident of Laveen.
I was made aware there will be a Laveen Village Planning Committee meeting this Monday, February 12th at the Laveen
Elementary School District #59, Laveen Education Center. This meeting will be the first meeting in the City process to
vote on the Gila Foothills PUD. I regret that I am unable to attend this meeting, however it is important that my voice,
along with many others, is heard in opposition to Case numbers: GPA‐LV‐3‐22‐8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z‐53‐
22‐8 (Zoning), which I will refer to going forward as the “Gila Foothills PUD”.
Our understanding is the request, basically, is asking to expand the currently planned 24 acres Commercial Zoning to
beyond 270+ acres, to include an Auto Mall, along with a possibility of a variety of other commercial based businesses,
along with high density housing, and a 15‐story hospital.
Many of us came to Laveen to escape high density, close commercial areas, and enjoy life in a quiet and mostly remote
location. In fact, that was Laveen’s claim – [Far enough to be away in the county, but close enough to the city]. Laveen
has experienced an extraordinary amount of progress and growth over the past decade: one or two new elementary
schools were completed; many more fast‐food chains/places have opened; the new Loop 202 which serves us well to
get to the West Valley Cities; and of course, many new homes have and are replacing the many farming fields we once
had. While progress is good and existing plans may likely be executed as expected, allowing this Gila Foothills PUD
expansion as currently proposed is not a good idea.
1. Surrounding neighborhood and unique character of rural Laveen: The current Gila Foothills PUD is not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The current neighborhood east of 51st Avenue mainly
consists of large single family residential lots up to 5 acres that promote the rural character of Laveen. The
neighborhood to the west, Tierra Montana, consists of single‐family residential lots. Per the existing 2015
and the draft 2025 Phoenix General Plan Land Use and Design Principles, the Character Plan contains Land
Use and Design Principles from the General Plan that each Village Planning Committee should follow as
guidance when evaluating planning related requests. For example, “Land Use: Ensure future land uses are
compatible with existing neighborhoods” and “Encourage development of taller and larger buildings in
areas of change away from single family and low‐rise, multifamily housing. What the Developer is
requesting in the Gila Foothills PUD as currently proposed is not compatible with these Land Use and Design
Principles and will fundamentally and detrimentally change the neighborhood and the character of
Laveen. The Gila Foothills PUD needs to be altered in such a way as to be compatible with the
neighborhoods on both sides of 51st Avenue and should in fact blend them together, rather than ramming a
HUGE commercial development between them.
2. Traffic Congestion: The expansion plan, in my opinion, does not take into consideration the
surrounding area. Laveen, like Phoenix, is on a grid system. Expanding commercial activities and adding high
density housing to the Gila Foothills area will result in more traffic congestion and a higher volume of
accidents. Have you been at 51st Avenue and Estrella Road or Carver Road recently? On a regular basis
(regular being defined as at least every couple days if not more) there is, inevitably, a vehicle collision. If the
Gila Foothills PUD is allowed to go forward with the current proposed density of housing and commercial
activity, then these accidents will continue in frequency and severity. The traffic mitigation and traffic lights
as currently proposed do not adequately address the increase to road use and overall congestion which
would result. If you vote to move forward with the Gila Foothills PUD, you will be risking the lives of people
in these neighborhoods!
2
3. We are experiencing a large increase in crime and less‐than‐ideal activities occurring. There have been three
murders at 51st Ave and Baseline over the last 18 months. Over the last few years Laveen has experienced an
increase in open drug sales and use, home and car break‐ins, and homelessness. There is no police station in the
area, and residents (like me) also rely on City of Phoenix and MCSO to understand and work together on their
jurisdictions. Bearing this in mind I’m sure you can understand my grave concern of expanding additional
commercial footprinting – which will, in turn, increase both traffic up/down 51st Avenue, as well as pedestrian
traffic, not to mention those which would seep into existing neighborhoods (like ours) in search for, well,
anything. If this development is even remotely considered, we absolutely need a stronger increase of both
presence and visibility from City of Phoenix AND MCSO (shameless plug: Both City of Phoenix Police and MCSO
have been wonderful and pleasant to work with, and we are eternally grateful for their help and support for our
community).
4. Post Office inadequacy: With the mass‐expansion of residents here and commerce over the last ~25 years,
our local Post‐Office has not changed. I was made aware there is/was a plan to move it and expand, but really,
that should precede additional development. Based on the number of residents and the service the Post Office
provides it’s clear it’s inadequate to support the current need. I personally dread having to go to our local post
office, not because of the employees (they’ve been great!), but mostly, because of the parking lot and long
lines– I don’t see it supporting the amount of people driving through. Laveen Planning tells us to expect some
~17,000 new homes in the area.
5. Dark Skies: The dark sky‐effect is diminished for those living here. The Gila Foothills PUD as currently
proposed includes large digital billboards, multistory parking garages for the Auto mall, a large hospital
complex, and 1700‐2300 housing units. If this is allowed, we will see the dark night skies cease to exist. We look
to the north and can see the glow of Phoenix at nighttime. We look to the south and see darker skies
unencumbered from city lights – I like to think that a majority of our residents also feel the same – on keeping
our sky dark.
My hope is, at the meeting this evening, you will see our local community share their passion for Laveen and to promote
awareness to why it is critical that we do not expand the commercial plan from 24 acres to ‘more than 270 Acres’. Our
intention is definitely not to “stop progress”, but to ensure the progress that will inevitably happen, is done with a
greater and stronger scrutiny, care and consideration for the existing residents, the environment, and the many other
factors where a great deal of responsibility is not preferred, but essential and required. I ask you to please require the
Gila Foothills Development to strike a balance with Community interests for balanced development both commercial
and residential, to retain low density residential zoning which currently exists, to require any development to include
securing an agreement from Maricopa County to widen S. 51st Avenue from W. Estrella Drive North to Dobbins Road,
and to materially increase funding for City Services for Laveen residents.
Thank you for your time,
Maria Reagin
480‐544‐8550
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Roger McCully <roger.mccully@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, February 9, 2024 7:02 AM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning).
Good morning. I am writing to you because I cannot attend the PUD Development meeting.
I write to voice my opposition to the development in the Gila 51st Ave. development plan.
This new development at north and south of Estrella Drive/51st Avenue and extends from the freeway
to 47th Ave. I am against this development as it will significantly impact our large lot residential area
south of Carver Road and quite frankly the entire community of Laveen
Roger McCully
Laveen Resident
XXXX S. 53rd Drive
Sent from my iPhone
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: Request for Your Support - Please Attend the Laveen Village Planning Committee on Monday
Feb. 12 at 6:30pm
From: Dina Samora <dsamora4@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 8:05 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Fw: Request for Your Support ‐ Please Attend the Laveen Village Planning Committee on Monday Feb. 12 at
6:30pm
I am not able to make the Feb 12th meeting however I want to vote against building more in Laveen.
Dina Samora
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
FW: GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning)
Attachments:
zone01.rtf
Importance:
High
From: ‐ Capitol Media Services <capmedia@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 5:55 PM
To: PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>
Subject: GPA‐LV‐3‐22‐8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z‐53‐22‐8 (Zoning)
Importance: High
To members of the Laveen Village Planning Committee:
I wish to express my views on GPA‐LV‐3‐22‐8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z‐53‐22‐8 (Zoning).
I moved into Laveen and bought my house here in 1983. I never was under the illusion that the area would
remain forever rural. That became clearer as the city continued to annex property. And the construction of the
South Mountain Freeway only cemented that change.
I also am appreciative of the work planning committee members have done over the years to accommodate
growth while doing what was possible to preserve some of the history and character.
As to this particular request, I also appreciate that the developer has heard at least some of our concerns.
Gone is the plan for a truck stop. And I have been given to understand that while there are to be car lots ‐‐
which, by necessity, require 24/7 lighting ‐‐ that care will be taken to minimize light pollution and glare.
But what seems to be a big sticking point is the part of the property on the south side of Estrella Drive
between 47th Avenue and 51st Avenue.
I take the developers at their word that the high‐end resort near South Mountain Park, which would be a
benefit to the community and the city, is not likely to happen because there is no demand. But their sole
fallback position appears to be to instead permit high‐density multi‐family residential for the entire stretch
immediately west of 47th Avenue/
I have looked around Laveen as well as much of the rest of Phoenix. And I can find no other situation where
such high‐density multi‐family residential has been approved immediately adjacent to existing one‐acre home
sites ‐‐ even with the proffered 50‐foot buffer.
I have suggested during multiple neighborhood meetings with the developer's representative that there
should be a "feathering," if you will, with lower‐density single‐family homes immediately west of 47th Avenue
‐‐ ideally single‐level the closest to existing development ‐‐ phasing in to higher density single‐family, perhaps
at the WAPA high‐voltage line and the proposed Gila Foothills Parkway. His only response was "I guess we'll
have to agree to disagree," hardly a negotiating position.
Please do not use this rezoning and general plan amendment procedure to set a bad precedent. There are
other ways to provide a mix of housing and commercial in this area wedged between existing homes, the Gila
River Indian Community and South Mountain Park.
Thank you.
Howard Fischer
4502 W. Estrella Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339
capmedia@hotmail.com
602‐390‐1170
(I have also attached a version of my comments in RTF format if that is preferable.)
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Jennifer Spicer <corazones3@icloud.com>
Sent:
Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:39 PM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Opposition to GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning)
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hello,
My name is Jennifer Spicer. I am a resident of Laveen and live on 47th Avenue directly adjacent to
the Gila Foothills PUD. I moved to the area from Buckeye just over two years ago specifically
because of the feel of the area. As Buckeye continued to be developed and multiple high-density
developments encroached on my house, I looked for a new place to settle that would give me the
space and neighborhood feel that I desired while staying close to the city and my job.
I especially liked Laveen because of the distance between residences, the view of the mountains, and
the rural feel of the neighborhood. When deciding to purchase in the area, I realized that the amazing
fields would not be there forever and the area would continue to be developed. Consequently, before
purchasing, my realtor and I did our due diligence in looking at the zoning of the surrounding area. I
was pleased to see that though there was some commercial development planned for nearest the
highway, the area immediately adjacent to my new home would be residential with larger lots,
keeping the density down. This was a deciding factor in my purchasing a house in the area. I would
never have purchased my house had I known there was a plan to convert all that land to
commercial and high-density housing!
I was made aware there will be a Laveen Village Planning Committee meeting this Monday, February 12th at
the Laveen Elementary School District #59, Laveen Education Center. This meeting will be the first meeting in
the City process to vote on the Gila Foothills PUD. I regret that I am unable to attend this meeting, however, it
is important that my voice, along with many others, is heard in opposition to Case numbers: GPA-LV-3-22-8
(General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning), which I will refer to going forward as the “Gila Foothills
PUD”.
Our understanding is the request, basically, is asking to expand the currently planned 24 acres Commercial
Zoning to beyond 270+ acres, to include an Auto Mall, along with a possibility of a variety of other commercial-
based businesses, along with high-density housing, and a 15-story hospital.
Many of us came to Laveen to escape high density, close commercial areas, and enjoy life in a quiet and
mostly remote location. In fact, that was Laveen’s claim – [Far enough to be away in the county, but close
enough to the city]. Laveen has experienced an extraordinary amount of progress and growth over the past
decade: one or two new elementary schools were completed; many more fast-food chains/places have
opened; the new Loop 202 which serves us well to get to the West Valley Cities; and of course, many new
homes have and are replacing the many farming fields we once had. While progress is good and existing plans
may likely be executed as expected, allowing this Gila Foothills PUD expansion as currently proposed is not a
good idea.
The current Gila Foothills PUD is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The current neighborhood
east of 51st Avenue mainly consists of large single-family residential lots up to 5 acres that promote the rural
character of Laveen. The neighborhood to the west, Tierra Montana, consists of single-family residential lots.
2
Per the existing 2015 and the draft 2025 Phoenix General Plan Land Use and Design Principles, the
Character Plan contains Land Use and Design Principles from the General Plan that each Village Planning
Committee should follow as guidance when evaluating planning-related requests. For example, “Land Use:
Ensure future land uses are compatible with existing neighborhoods” and “Encourage development of
taller and larger buildings in areas of change away from single-family and low-rise, multifamily
housing. What the Developer is requesting in the Gila Foothills PUD as currently proposed is not compatible
with these Land Use and Design Principles and will fundamentally and detrimentally change the neighborhood
and the character of Laveen. The Gila Foothills PUD needs to be altered in such a way as to be compatible
with the neighborhoods on both sides of 51st Avenue and should in fact blend them together, rather than
ramming a HUGE commercial development between them.
Laveen has the opportunity to control the direction of the local development to create a welcoming community
that people will want to visit and partake in the unique rural feel of our beautiful area. The proposed
development will make Laveen feel like “Anywhere Phoenix” and detract from the existing neighborhood, so I
completely oppose the Gila Foothills PUD proposal.
I hope that, at the meeting this evening, you will see our local community share their passion for Laveen and
promote awareness of why we mustn't expand the commercial plan from 24 acres to ‘more than 270 Acres’.
Our intention is definitely not to “stop progress”, but to ensure the progress that will inevitably happen is done
with greater and stronger scrutiny, care, and consideration for the existing residents, the environment, and the
many other factors where a great deal of responsibility is not preferred, but essential and required. I ask you to
please require the Gila Foothills Development to strike a balance with Community interests for balanced
development both commercial and residential, to retain low-density residential zoning which currently exists, to
require any development to include securing an agreement from Maricopa County to widen S. 51st Avenue
from W. Estrella Drive North to Dobbins Road, and to materially increase funding for City Services for Laveen
residents.
I have seen and heard the presentation that John Bzdel will present at the Laveen Village Planning Committee
meeting this Monday, February 12th, and wholly agree and support his proposal.
Thank you for your time and for taking into consideration the impact of this development on myself, my
neighbors, and Laveen!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Spicer
12435 S 47th Avenue
Laveen, AZ 85339
480-334-2296
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Ali Williams <aemyuma@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, February 11, 2024 9:52 AM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna; Mayor Gallego
Subject:
FW: Case numbers GPA-LV-3-22-8 and Z-53-22-8 Gila Foothills
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Ali Williams <aemyuma@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 9:38:03 AM
To: laveenvpc@phoenix.gov <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; anyeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov
<anyeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Case numbers GPA‐LV‐3‐22‐8 and Z‐53‐22‐8 Gila Foothills
To Whom It May Concern and Should Concern:
I have been a resident since 2006 at 12601 South 47th Avenue, Laveen, Az. I am writing you to oppose the current
request for rezoning of parcels in the corner of 47th Avenue and Estrella Drive. The proposed plan before you does NOT
abide by the rural area and surrounding custom home properties. Nor does this plan before you a true fit for the last
remaining true Laveen!
I would like to mention that I agreed to host a “neighborhood” meeting at my house several times with Reid Butler and
Tom Bilsten. During the time of these meetings, we, as a group NEVER agreed to this development. We tried to keep our
rural road as it is and Mr. Butler showed us several handouts of doing just that. Since the last meeting with these two
men, we, as a group of neighbors that reside on 47th Avenue have learned that Mr. Butler has informed other neighbors
in our area that we, as a group, do agree of his development plans for the parcels in front of our homes – this is NOT
true and is false, misleading, mis representation and flat out dishonest!
I agree with John Bzdel and choose Mr. Bzdel to represent me, my interests and concerns regarding this development,
Gila Foothills.
Alice E. Williams
12601 S 47th Avenue
Laveen, Az 85339
602/363‐7750
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
D in AZ <darcy3535@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, February 11, 2024 3:36 PM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Opposition to GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning)
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Re: Opposition to GPA-LV-3-22-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-53-22-8 (Zoning)
To whom it may concern,
These two proposed plans are the exact opposite of what should be in Laveen. Crime is out of control, people are
sleeping in Carver Mountain, homeless and people struggling with drugs and mental health are loitering at gas stations
and along store fronts, and the monstrosity of what is planned for this acreage is going to be detrimental for what’s left
of Laveen’s rural area. Isn’t there a 1 billion‐dollar complex going up just a mile from this property, not to mention all
that has come up at Baseline? Is it a rule that towns need to develop at every exit? Why do planning committees feel
the need to approve more buildings to make a developer wealthier but it’s the residents that have to suffer for years to
come?
All of these planned amendments and zoning changes are not appropriate to this area. The residents don’t want the
additional traffic, unsightly complexes, and increased crime because we can’t even handle what we have already. It
doesn’t fit this area. Period.
Benjamin Meyer
3535 W Bohl St
Laveen
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Benjamin Meyer <ben.meyer3456@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, February 11, 2024 5:03 PM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Opposition to GPA-LV-3-22-8 and Z-53-22-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
To the Laveen Planning Committee,
I’m in opposition to GPA-LV-3-22-8 and Z-53-22-8 because I’m a neighbor who lives pretty close to this and it will
totally change this area for the worse forever. What’s left of our quaint rural area with the beautiful views will be lost
forever. I’m not the only one who thinks it’s already scary to shop here, this town looks run down, the streets are dirty
and unkempt, homeless and those struggling with mental health issues are sleeping and loitering in many places,
including Carver Mtn, even‐until recently‐sleeping amongst the discarded Christmas trees by the park.
Autoplexes, digital billboards, warehouses, a hospital, more apartments to block our views and whatever else they have
planned are not fitting for this area and it’s a shame if the Laveen Planning Committee would approve this. I’m almost
wondering if the planning committee even lives in Laveen‐ why would you want this in your town that has enough
crime, blight, homelessness, crowded schools, and dangerous intersections already? I’m sure some think it’ll be nice‐‐
until it’s not nice anymore and the residents here have to deal with all the effects. Say no to these proposals and do
what’s right for the neighbors, not the developers.
Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St
Laveen 85339
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Gerry Williams <glwlaveen@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, February 11, 2024 10:34 AM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD Laveen VPC; Mayor Gallego
Subject:
Gila Foothills Development GPA-LV-3-22-8 and Z-53-22-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Gerald L. "Gerry" Williams, have resided at 12601 South 47th Avenue in Laveen, Az since July of 1994. I
strongly oppose the above mentioned purposed development! It does not fit nor blend in with the current
residential area of rural Laveen. It would be surrounded by custom homes with various types of livestock. The
current plan in place is more of a correct fit for this residential area.
I purchased my home because I loved the views of the Estrella Mountain Range, the fireplace built in my
home, the acreage and the quietness of the rural area! Sadly, the views and quietness will disappear with the
current purposed plan. It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Reid Butler has been misleading my
surrounding neighbors that myself, my wife and the other 9 neighbors of 47th Avenue are in agreement of his
development ‐ this is NOT true and is very dishonest of Mr. Butler!! Myself and wife hosted a few meetings
with Mr. Butler and Mr. Tom Bilsten with our neighbors but we NEVER agreed to this development plan. I
believe this development team, Reid Butler and Tom Bilsten divided our community up to conquer!
At this point, I am in agreement with Mr. John Bzdel's purposed plan and give Mr. Bzdel complete authority to
represent my interest in this matter.
I
do have to state that I am concerned that Mr. Butler will be vindictive upon hearing this and I will end up with
a four story building in front of my property!!!! Is the development going to pay for the loss of our views, after
all, that is a major selling point on ALL real estate!!
Thank you for your time,
Gerald L. "Gerry" Williams
12601 South 47th Avenue
Laveen, Az 85339
602/339‐2466
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
Janice McBee <azmcbee@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, February 11, 2024 7:47 PM
To:
PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
GPA-LV-3-22-8 & Z-53-22-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
I'm a Laveen resident and am in complete opposition to the proposed changes in the General plan. A car mall is not
conducive of the feel of a rural Laveen. And a hospital with the height is unacceptable. No where along the 202 are
buildings that high.
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
azmcbee <azmcbee@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, February 11, 2024 7:43 PM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
GPA-LV-3-22-8 & Z-53-22-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
I'm in opposition to the General plan Amendments. A hospital at that location is unacceptable with its height. Also a car
mall is not conducive of the rural feel of Laveen. Buildings that high are nowhere to be found along the 202.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development
P.O. Box 194
Laveen AZ
THELCRD.ORG
THELCRD@GMAIL.COM
At the February 5, 2024 LCRD meeting there was a presentation from the community regarding the
Gila Foothills development project. The 25 minute power point presentation was very detailed and
informative. There were approximately 40 people in attendance for this case.
In addition to the issues raised in the Power Point presentation, there were many other concerns
raised. Those included:
a) No traffic study has been done to address the impact of increased traffic on Carver Road.
b) No traffic study has been done to address increased commercial traffic on 55th Avenue
c) No study has been done on the impact this will have on South Mountain Park
d) There is concern for the preservation of the dark skies in the area
e) There is no study on how the increased sound will impact the area
f) There has been no environmental impact study done
g) With current shortages, how law enforcement can handle this massive increase in activity
h) There is no discussion of a much needed fire station for the area
i) How this extremely high density is not compatible with the area
The LCRD Board had concerns with:
a) The applicants refusal to present their plan for our consideration.
b) The lack of all of the studies the community had concerns with.
c) The proposed hospital is only two miles from the other hospital to be in the area
d) The amount of high density apartments and lack of single family residences
e) The lack of details being provided for this entire project
In consideration of all of the above points The LCRD could not make a recommendation for this
project. This case has a lot of merit, as does the position of the surrounding community. It was felt
that somewhere in the middle of the two opposite sides is a good compromise. We need to take the
time to explore that.
One stipulation that was agreed on was that due to the lack of details, every site of the development
must be subject to the PHO process allowing for the LVPC and the community to have input
The LCRD unanimously voted to recommend this case be continued at the LVPC, and sent back to
the community to allow the applicant and the community to work together towards answering many of
the questions and resolving some of the issues
Thank you for your consideration.
The Board of Directors of the LCRD
February 10, 2024
Item Number: 4
Case Number: GPA-LV-3-22-8 (Companion Case Z-53-22-8)
APPLICANT IN OPPOSITION TO GILA FOOTHILLS PUD
Lynn Davis
4303 W. Calle Poco Laveen, AZ 85339
Zoning Hearing: Monday, February 12, 2024, at 6:30 PM
nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov
Dear Nayeli Sanchez Luna,
We the six residents that reside at 4303 W. Calle Poco, Laveen, AZ 85339, strongly
OPPOSE and OBJECT to Item Number 4, Case Number GPA-LV-3-22-8 (Companion
Case Z-53-22-8), which is a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
Designation on approximately 282.36 acres located at the southeast corner of 55th
Avenue and Carver Road, because amending this area is in direct violation of the purpose
of this District; which is designed to encourage, preserve and protect the historical, rural,
and agricultural character of the area. This proposed development would destroy the
calm and peaceful environment of this residential community of larger lots filled with
majestic trees, flowers, green grass, citrus trees, beloved pets, horses, livestock, poultry,
and quiet moonlit evenings surrounded by natural landscapes.
A truck stop, auto mall, resort, parking garage, and five obtrusive lighted, digital billboards
would overtax the infrastructure of our small, rural Laveen Village with overcrowding
population in our schools and neighborhoods, excessive pollution from vehicle emissions
and diesel from trucks, noise pollution, an increase in crime such as robbery, theft, drugs,
prostitution, sex-trafficking, water drainage and sewage issues, an introduction to
unwelcome guests with nefarious intentions to our peaceful community, and a surge in
accidents caused by an influx of vehicles, trucks and 18 wheelers entering and exiting the
roads. A proposed development of this magnitude would usher in the ills and problems of
major cities. Laveen Village would cease to be the warm and welcoming enclave to
homebuyers seeking to experience peace, tranquility, and the wonders of nature; but
instead; evolve into a major, overdeveloped metropolitan city such as New York and
Chicago.
Developing the site in this manner will adversely affect the residents; and open the
floodgates to other objectionable, commercial ventures; that will destroy this quiet,
peaceful environment, and surrounding community. Deleterious factors such as
overpopulation, traffic congestion, noise and exhaust pollution, water drainage and sewer
issues, traffic accidents, elimination of natural vegetation, and sweltering temperatures
created by concrete, asphalt, glass, and steel will be the result of this massive, proposed
commercial development. The rural character of Laveen Village will be compromised if
this misaligned venture is allowed to proceed.
Item Number 4, Case Number GPA-LV-3-22-8 (Companion Case Z-53-22-8) SHOULD
NOT BE APPROVED because this proposed development would be detrimental to the
residents, and the rural and agricultural character of the area. This ponderous commercial
venture is ill-fitted for Laveen Village and not feasible because the development does not
protect or safeguard the community, the environment, and the public.
Thank You
February 10, 2024
Item Number: 5
Case Number: Z-53-22-8 (Companion Case GPA-LV-3-22-8)
APPLICANT IN OPPOSITION TO GILA FOOTHILLS PUD
Lynn Davis
4303 W. Calle Poco Laveen, AZ 85339
Zoning Hearing: Monday, February 12, 2024, at 6:30 PM
LaveenVPC@phoenix.gov
Dear Laveen Village Planning Committee,
We the six residents that reside at 4303 W. Calle Poco Laveen, AZ 85339 strongly
OPPOSE and OBJECT to Item Number 5, Case Number Z-53-22-8 (Companion Case
GPA-LV-3-22-8, which is a request to rezone approximately 281.49 acres located at the
southeast corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road, because rezoning this area is in direct
violation of the principal purpose of this Zoning District; which is to conserve and protect
farms and other open land uses, foster orderly growth in rural areas, prevent urban and
agricultural land use conflicts, and encourage sustainable development. High density,
towering buildings reaching heights up to 150 feet will be eyesores against the backdrop
of sustainable, lush farms, and the green, serene landscape of this rural area. This
proposed development would destroy the calm and peaceful environment of this
residential community of larger lots filled with majestic trees, flowers, green grass, citrus
trees, beloved pets, horses, livestock, poultry, and quiet moonlit evenings surrounded by
natural landscapes. The founding fathers of Laveen Arizona created these rural zoning
districts to protect the community and the environment from harmful, destructive, and
intrusive commercial developments such as the Gila Foothills PUD. Our small, peaceful
community is at risk and this zoning request should be denied.
A truck stop, auto mall, resort, towering buildings, parking garage, and five obtrusive
lighted, digital billboards would overtax the infrastructure of our small, rural Laveen Village
with overcrowding population in our schools and neighborhoods, excessive pollution from
vehicle emissions and diesel from trucks, noise pollution, an increase in crime such as
robbery, theft, drugs, and prostitution, sex-trafficking, water drainage and sewage issues,
an introduction to unwelcome guests with nefarious intentions to our peaceful
community, and a surge in accidents caused by an influx of vehicles, trucks and 18
wheelers entering and exiting the roads. A proposed development of this magnitude
would usher in the ills and problems of major cities. Laveen Village would cease to be the
warm and welcoming enclave to homebuyers seeking to experience peace, tranquility,
and the wonders of nature; but instead; evolve into a major, overdeveloped metropolitan
city such as New York and Chicago.
Developing the site in this manner will adversely affect the residents; and open the
floodgates to other objectionable, commercial ventures; that will destroy this quiet,
peaceful environment, and surrounding community. Deleterious factors such as
overpopulation, traffic congestion, noise and exhaust pollution, water drainage and sewer
issues, traffic accidents, elimination of natural vegetation, and sweltering temperatures
created by concrete, asphalt, glass and steel will be the result of this massive, proposed
commercial development. Scenic vistas of sunny skies, magnificent mountains, beautiful
landscapes, star-filled evenings, and moonlight paradises will be transformed into noisy,
glaring, blinding lights of billboards, skyscrapers, and incessant traffic. The rural character
of Laveen Village will be compromised if this misaligned venture is allowed to proceed.
Item Number 5, Case Number Z-53-22-8 (Companion Case GPA-LV-3-22-8) SHOULD
NOT BE APPROVED because this proposed development would be detrimental to the
residents, and the rural and agricultural character of the area. This ponderous commercial
venture is ill-fitted for Laveen Village and not feasible because the development does not
protect or safeguard the community, the environment, and the public. The Gila Foothills
PUD is contrary to the principal purpose of this zoning district to conserve and protect
farms and other open land uses, foster orderly growth in rural areas, prevent urban and
agricultural land use conflicts, and encourage sustainable development. PLEASE DENY
ITEM NUMBER 5, CASE NUMBER Z-53-22-8 (COMPANION CASE GPA-LV-3-22-8).
Thank You
1
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From:
jenski68@gmail.com
Sent:
Monday, February 12, 2024 4:59 AM
To:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject:
GILA PUD
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hello,
I am in opposition to the Gila foothills PUD. If you need me to sign a petition please let me know.
Sincerely
Jennifer Domzalski
Ellison trails
Sent from my iPhone