Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-138-F-83-5.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2022-09-07)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 36912 characters

Staff Report Z-138-F-83-5
(Aldea Centre PUD)
May 10, 2022
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Date
May 11, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing Date
June 2, 2022
Request From:
PUD PCD (125.30 Acres)
Request To:
PUD PCD (125.30 Acres)
Proposed Use
Major Amendment to the DC Ranch PCD
to allow an amendment to the Aldea Centre
PUD to allow multifamily residential
Location
Northwest corner of 99th Avenue and
Missouri Avenue
Owner
John F. Long Family Revocable Living
Trust
Applicant/Representative
Brian Greathouse, Burch and Cracchiolo
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Mixed Use
Street Map
Classification
Bethany Home Road
Alignment
0-foot south half street
(northern property
boundary)
99th Avenue
Arterial
33-foot west half street
(City of Glendale)
Montebello Avenue
Minor Collector
70-foot full street
Missouri Avenue
Minor Collector
35-foot north half street
Attachment B

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 2 of 12

Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 8.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 10.

Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 11.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 12.

101st Avenue
Minor Collector
30-foot east half street
(south portion) and 60-
foot full street (north
portion)

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CORE, CENTERS AND
CORRIDORS; CODES TOOL: Support healthy urban villages, with a balance mix of
housing, employment opportunities and services as a principal means to reduce
vehicle trip length and associated emissions.

The site is in close proximity to the Algodón Major employment center. The request to
amend the PUD to increase multifamily residential density adds to a mix of employment
and housing uses in the Maryvale village.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposed multifamily residential development would be compatible with the
surrounding land uses. The existing land uses include multifamily residential
development to the south of the subject site and single-family residences to the
southwest.

CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER CORE VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian amenities in new major
development projects in high-density, mixed-use, areas or near transit stations or
employment centers.

The subject site is in close proximity to an employment center and the PUD narrative
requires pedestrian amenities such as connections to the canal to enhance pedestrian
connectivity throughout the site.

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 3 of 12

Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning

Land Use
Zoning
On Site
Vacant land, multifamily
residential, office, warehouse
PUD PCD
North
Vacant land, agricultural, Grand
Canal
A-1, PAD (City of Glendale)
South
Elementary school and multifamily
residential
R-3A PCD, R1-10 PCD
East (across
99th Avenue)
Commercial uses and
warehousing
PAD (City of Glendale)
West
Single-family residential
R1-10 PCD, RE-35

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE

1.
This is a request to rezone a 125.30-acre site located at the northwest corner of 99th
Avenue and Missouri Avenue from PUD PCD (Planned Unit Development, Planned
Community District) to PUD PCD (Planned Unit Development, Planned Community
District). The request is a Major Amendment to the Aldea Centre PUD to increase
multifamily residential density and the overall unit maximum allowed within the PUD
area.

The PUD area is within the DC Ranch PCD. The DC Ranch PCD includes the
square-mile area from Camelback Road on the south, Bethany Home Road on the
north, 99th Avenue on the east, and the Roosevelt Irrigation District canal on the
west. The PCD is divided into west and east sections along 103rd Avenue. The
Aldea Centre PUD is in the DC Ranch East PCD.

2.
The subject site has a General Plan Land Use Map designation of Mixed Use. The
proposal to increase multifamily residential units and density in the PUD is consistent
with this designation.

General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 4 of 12

The surrounding designations to the west are Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan Land Use Map
designation to the south is Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre. The designation to the north is Business Park (City of
Glendale) and to the east is Planned Commercial (City of Glendale).

EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3.
The subject site is bound by the Grand Canal at the Bethany Home Road alignment on
the north; Missouri Avenue and the northern boundary of the Sonoran Sky Elementary
School property on the south; 99th Avenue on the east; and 101st Avenue and the
103rd Avenue alignment, north of the school property, on the west. The northwest
corner of the property is defined by a Roosevelt Irrigation District canal that cuts from
southwest to northeast.

There is a Salt River Project (SRP) substation located at the southwest corner of 99th
Avenue and the Bethany Home Road alignment that is not a part of the PUD area,
which is zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), RE-43 (One Family Residence) and
RE-35 (One-Family Residence).

Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department

The PUD area contains vacant land, agricultural land, multifamily residences, office
and warehouse uses. To the south is an elementary school zoned R1-10 PCD
(Single-Family Residence District) and multifamily residences zoned R-3A PCD
(Multifamily Residence District). To the east, in the City of Glendale, is a furniture

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 5 of 12

store and warehouse zoned PAD (Planned Area Development). To the north, also
in Glendale, is agricultural land zoned A-1 (Agricultural) and PAD (Planned Area
Development). To the west are single-family residences zoned RE-35 (One-Family
Residence) and R1-10 PCD (Single-Family Residence District). The proposed
development site for the multifamily residential project is located on the northwest
corner of 99th Avenue and Montebello Avenue. The proposed development would be
permitted throughout the PUD area and is subject to the performance and development
standards as proposed in this amendment.

4.
The PUD is approximately a quarter mile from the Loop 101 Freeway and approximately
half a mile from the Agua Fria Employment Center, a City of Phoenix designated
Employment Center, and the Algodón Major Employment Center as designated by the
Maricopa Association of Governments and as listed in the City of Phoenix General Plan.

Source: City of Phoenix General Plan 2015

APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT HISTORY

5.
The PUD area is the last development phase of the DC Ranch PCD, an approximately
425-acre master planned community, initially approved by City Council on August 5,
1983 via Rezoning Case Nos. Z-138-83 and Z-139-83.

In 1985 City Council approved a Major Amendment to the DC Ranch PCD with
Rezoning Case Nos. Z-138-A-83 and Z-139-A-83 for approximately 35 acres along
Camelback Road for a mix of residential and commercial zoning designations.

In June of 1987 City Council approved a subsequent Major Amendment for
approximately 131 acres of the PCD to allow a mix of residential and commercial
uses, via Rezoning Case No. Z-138-B-83-5.

In December of 2009 City Council approved the Aldea Centre PUD PCD for 125.30
acres of the PCD to allow a mix of uses to including retail, office and multifamily
residential uses via Rezoning Case No. Z-138-C-83-5.

A Minor Amendment to the Aldea Centre PUD was administratively approved

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 6 of 12

August of 2017 for revisions to Section G.1.b. of the Performance Standards for
Amusement Parks hours of operations and Section G.8. of the Development
Standards for Walls and Fencing.

In July of 2019 City Council approved a Major Amendment to the Aldea Centre
PUD via Rezoning Case No. Z-138-D-83-5 to allow a mix of uses including
commercial, commerce park, and high-density multifamily residential.

On December 1, 2021 the Phoenix City Council approved a Major Amendment to the
Aldea Center PUD via Rezoning Case No. Z-138-E-83-5 to allow recreational vehicle
sales, service and showroom.

PROPOSAL

6.
The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district, which allows an
application to propose uses, development standards and design guidelines for a site.
One of the goals of this process is to allow the applicant to develop standards that
respond to the surrounding environment more so than conventional zoning districts
allow. The end result is property rezoned with standards crafted specifically for the site.
Where a PUD narrative is silent on a requirement, the applicable Zoning Ordinance
provisions will be applied.

7.
Below is a summary of the proposed modified and additional standards for the
subject site, as described in the attached Aldea Centre PUD Narrative date
stamped April 26, 2022. The primary addition proposed in the Major Amendment
includes an update to the density permitted for multifamily developments. This proposal
does not change any other permitted uses or development standards as previously
listed in the PUD.

Currently, the Aldea Centre PUD has a maximum residential density of 25 dwelling units
per gross acre for any residential use within the PUD in addition to a maximum of 288
overall units based on the remaining units in the DC Ranch PCD. The standards
contained in the current proposal will increase the permitted density to 37 dwelling units
per acre for any residential use within the Aldea Centre PUD. The proposed multifamily
residential development would add 537 new units to the PCD; as a result, the proposal
would increase the maximum number of residential units within the PUD area to 827
and within the DC Ranch PCD to 2,407 units. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1.f
and Stipulation No. 12.

The proposed building height standards remain unchanged and are subject to the
Building Height Standard exhibit contained within the Development Narrative. Permitted
building heights range from a maximum of 15 feet within 75 feet of single-family zoned
property to a maximum of 100 feet for hotel and amusement park uses. The maximum
height permitted for the majority of the site is 56 feet.

Building standards for the development area remain unchanged. Building setbacks
ranging from 15 to 30 are to be provided along all public streets within and surrounding
the development. Parking canopies would be able to be setback a minimum of seven

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 7 of 12

feet from the SRP Substation. Similarly, landscape setbacks ranging from 10 to 25 feet
will also be provided adjacent to any public street. Additionally, a seven-foot minimum
landscape setback adjacent to the SRP Substation applies only to parking spaces and
parking canopies. Otherwise, the minimum landscape setback shall be 15 feet.

Currently, the Aldea Centre PUD proposes a gateway entry located along the eastern
300 feet of the northern perimeter. The standard contained in the current proposal
would create a pedestrian gateway entry located 400 feet along the northern perimeter
of the PUD. The standards contained in the current proposal would also require the
gated multifamily development north of Montebello Avenue to construct pedestrian
pathways along the west boundary of the multifamily development that would connect
sidewalks on Montebello Avenue to the canal. In addition to a connection to the canal,
Stipulation 1.e requires a portion of residential units facing the canal to include
balconies, in order to activate the area long the canal.

AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES

8.
Housing Phoenix
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 a 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 vacant land in a
more sustainable fashion.

9.
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
PUD contains existing standards for bicycle parking for commercial and multifamily
residential uses which remain unchanged for this request.

10. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To support these principles related to
pedestrian connectivity and safety, Stipulation No. 1.c requires that where pedestrian
pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent
parking and drive aisle surfaces. Stipulation No. 1.b requires that pedestrian pathways
utilize the most direct route in order to provide an accessible connected pedestrian
system.

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 8 of 12

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. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. The proposal includes greater planting standards than
otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the proposal requires 50
percent shade cover at maturity be provided over all public and private pedestrian
pathways.

12. 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 proposed project will be subject to the City of Phoenix
waste collection and recycling requirements. Stipulation 1.d requires refuse bins to be
fully screened as a method to improve waste management within the PUD.

COMMUNITY INPUT

13. At the time the staff report was written, staff received one letter of opposition
regarding the request. The stated concerns are the new proposed density within the
PUD, possible commercial development adjacent to the existing school, and an
increase in traffic congestion within the area.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS

14. The Phoenix Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems
with this case and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 Phoenix
Fire Code.

15. The Public Transit Department requested the construction of two bus stop pads along
southbound 99th Avenue one at Montebello and the other at the northern entrance of
the multifamily development located on 99th Avenue. These requirements are
addressed in Stipulation No. 2.

16. The Street Transportation Department requested that all street improvements be
made to current ADA guidelines, and that any cross access agreements, include
pedestrian access. Furthermore, the applicant is required to provide a Traffic Impact
Study, and that a Master Street Plan be submitted. These requirements are addressed
in Stipulation Nos. 3 through 5 and 14.

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 9 of 12

17. The City of Phoenix Aviation Department has indicated that due to the proximity
of the Glendale Airport and potential for noise from airport related activity,
stipulations have been included regarding disclosure of the airport’s operations,
a requirement that the applicant receive a No Hazard Determination from the
FFA and that the applicant dedicate avigation easements to the City of Glendale. An
additional stipulation has been included requiring the applicant to disclose the proximity
of the Glendale Municipal Airport to prospective renters or purchasers within the leasing
office of any multifamily development. These are addressed in Stipulation No. 6 through
9.

OTHER
18. As a condition of the site’s original DC Ranch PCD zoning approval in 1983 and
subsequent amendments, all remaining PCD zoning stipulations and conditions will still
apply and be carried forward with this approval, including the cap on the number of units
permitted to be developed. The original PCD requirements are detailed in Stipulation
Nos. 12 through 14.

19. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet 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 Stipulation No. 10.

20. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Zoning adjustments,
abandonments or other formal actions may also be required.

Findings

1.
The request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed
Use and supports multiple General Plan Goals and Policies.

2.
The proposed increase in residential density is consistent with the goals of the
Aldea Centre PUD to promote healthy urban villages with a balance mix of
housing, employment and services.

3.
The proposal introduces several new development standards, that include
increasing pedestrian pathways and increase canal usage that will contribute to a
more pedestrian-friendly development.

Stipulations

1.
An updated Development Narrative for the Aldea Centre PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped April 26, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations:

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 10 of 12
a.
Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:
Major Amendment Z-183-F-83
Submitted: November 3, 2021
2nd Submittal: February 1, 2022
Hearing Draft: April 26, 2022
City Council Adopted: [Add Adoption Date]
b.
Page 60, Page 61, Section 7 City Administered Design Guidelines: Add
the following language applicable to all uses: Clearly defined, accessible
pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building entrances and
public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
c.
Page 60, Page 61, Section 7 City Administered Design Guidelines: Add
the following language applicable to all uses: Where pedestrian pathways
cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually
contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
d.
Page 61, Section 7 City Administered Design Guidelines, Design
Guidelines applicable to Multifamily uses north of Montebello Ave: Add
additional bullet point with the following language: “Refuse bins shall be
fully screen from view by a 6-foot-tall masonry block wall and metal gate,
or other high-quality materials.”
e.
Page 61, Section 7 City Administered Design Guidelines, Design
Guidelines applicable to Multifamily uses north of Montebello Ave: Add
additional bullet point with the following language: “A minimum of 75% of
residential units facing the canal shall contain balconies.”
f.
Page 37, Section G Performance and Development Standards, Section s)
Residential Multifamily, First Bullet Point: Modify existing bullet point with
the following language “The aggregate development of residential
multifamily uses including residential multifamily apartment, condominium,
and/or loft uses within the PUD area shall not exceed 827 units. This will
increase the DC Ranch (East) PCD unit maximum to 2,407 units.
2.
The developer shall construct two bus stop pads along southbound 99th Avenue: one
south of Montebello Avenue and the other near the northern entrance of the multifamily
development along 99th Avenue. The bus stop pads shall be constructed according to City
of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be spaced
from each intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.
3.
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 11 of 12
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.
4.
Any cross-access agreements shall include a pedestrian pathway, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
5.
A traffic impact study shall be reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department prior to preliminary site plan approval. The applicant shall be
responsible for any dedications and required improvements as recommended by
the approved study, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6.
The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Glendale Municipal Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
7.
For Multifamily Development
Prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the developer must install a
sign (approximately 8 inches by 11 inches in size) within the development's
sales/leasing office that is visible to prospective renters or purchasers which
discloses the proximity of the Glendale Municipal Airport and increased frequency
of overflight and related aircraft noise, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
8.
The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
9.
The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Glendale for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
10.
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.
11.
Prior to preliminary 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.

Staff Report: Z-138-F-83-5
May 10, 2022
Page 12 of 12
PCD Stipulations
12.
The development master plan shall be updated to reflect that the maximum total
number of residential units within the DC Ranch (East) PCD shall not exceed 2,407
units.
13.
The DC Ranch PCD master plans for the PCD shall be updated to reflect approval
of this amendment if applicable, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14.
A Master Street Plan showing all public arterial and collector streets shall be
submitted to the Street Transportation and Planning and Development
Departments for review and approval.
Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
May 10, 2022
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 15, 2022 (4 pages)
Conceptual Elevations date stamped April 15, 2022
Community Correspondence (2 pages)
Aldea Centre PUD Narrative date stamped April 26, 2022

Z-35-02
Z-139-A-83
ANX 442
ANX 265
ANX 113
Z-138-C-83
Z-138-83
Z-138-A-83
Z-139-83
Z-138-D-83
ANX 442
Phoenix City Limits
*
*
City of
Glendale
*
Phoenix City Limits
*
*
R1-8 PCD
RE-35
RE-35
RE-43
PCD
R-3A PCD
R-3A PCD
RE-35
S-1
S-1
PUD PCD
RE-43
104TH AVE
103RD AVE
RANCHO DR
102ND AVE
101ST AVE
101ST DR
SOLANO DR
103RD DR
MEDLOCK DR
SAN MIGUEL AVE
COLTER ST
104TH DR
102ND DR
105TH AVE
DENTON LN
GEORGIA AVE
106TH DR
OREGON AVE
SAN JUAN AVE
VERMONT AVE
ORANGE DR
LUKE AVE
MONTEBELLO AVE
MISSOURI AVE
105TH LN
99TH AVE
106TH AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
MC DOWELL RD
107TH AVE
99TH AVE
91ST AVE
83RD AVE
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
THOMAS RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CAMELBACK RD
GRAND AVE
SR 1
0
1
MARYVALE VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-138-F-83
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
125.30 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
PUD PCD
PUD PCD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
288
827
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A
N/A
Brian Greathouse, Burch and Cracchiolo
DATE:
12/9/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 20-4
ZONING MAP
I-2
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: PUD PCD ( 125.30 a.c.)
TO:
PUD PCD ( 125.30 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\1983\Z-138-F-83.mxd
Z-138-F-83
0.15
0
0.15
0.075
Miles

Z-35-02
Z-139-A-83
ANX 442
ANX 265
ANX 113
Z-138-C-83
Z-138-83
Z-138-A-83
Z-139-83
Z-138-D-83
ANX 442
Phoenix City Limits
*
*
City of
Glendale
*
Phoenix City Limits
*
*
R1-8 PCD
RE-35
RE-35
RE-43
PCD
R-3A PCD
R-3A PCD
RE-35
S-1
S-1
PUD PCD
RE-43
104TH AVE
103RD AVE
RANCHO DR
102ND AVE
101ST AVE
101ST DR
SOLANO DR
103RD DR
MEDLOCK DR
SAN MIGUEL AVE
COLTER ST
104TH DR
102ND DR
105TH AVE
DENTON LN
GEORGIA AVE
106TH DR
OREGON AVE
SAN JUAN AVE
VERMONT AVE
ORANGE DR
LUKE AVE
MONTEBELLO AVE
MISSOURI AVE
105TH LN
99TH AVE
106TH AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
MC DOWELL RD
107TH AVE
99TH AVE
91ST AVE
83RD AVE
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
THOMAS RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CAMELBACK RD
GRAND AVE
SR 1
0
1
MARYVALE VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-138-F-83
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
125.30 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
PUD PCD
PUD PCD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
288
827
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A
N/A
Brian Greathouse, Burch and Cracchiolo
DATE:
12/9/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 20-4
ZONING MAP
I-2
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: PUD PCD ( 125.30 a.c.)
TO:
PUD PCD ( 125.30 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\1983\Z-138-F-83.mxd
Z-138-F-83
0.15
0
0.15
0.075
Miles

)8(?5 ? (?;??
/2!,? !?

? 0<?

?=? "63?
)!(;?
*5 (?
?9+#7?
)8(? )!(? ?
?/--)?
(8-82?
?36.0<?

?3 ?
8(5
14$?

?
!(;??
5!(?
;?
(,!

, ),

18'-0"
5,121,19
s.f.

:('?

! !

!
)8(?5 ? (?;??
/2!,? !?

? 0<?

?=? "63?
)!(;?
*5 (?
?9+#7?
)8(? )!(? ?

?/--)?
(8-82?
?36.0<?

?3 ?

,, ,, ", &,*,++

8(5
14$?

!(;??
5!(?
;?

, #,

? ? >?%?

!
!
(,!

, ),
%,$

,.*,*/?7*)#)!?
"#!"0?
2#&#)!?/0%/?
&)/,#)!?

*,)?/,
,.%#)!
#/&/
)/#06?,.*3#
2)#1/?.,.%/

.,.%/?,.*3#?
//#&?2)#0/?
?,.%#)!?
#%?,.%#)!?

&*#)!?
&?

!
!
!

. 2/?
&*0?*3.!?

!
!
! !!!!!!!
!
!

!
,2?($*.?()()0?
?/0*.#/??
??0"?3)2?

?(*)0&&*?3)2?
+??#)0.#*.?&*0?&#)?
??0"?3)2?

?(*)0&&*?3)2?
+??#)0.#*.?&*0?&#)?

?/ ?=:9? )*),.%#)!?)*)2#&#)!?
.,.%?/#7?,.*3#? 58??/0).?
,2?&&*4/??#/&?4#0"??04*?46? *.? #.?0.2%?

?2)0?.?,.*3#??2)#0/?=3#0#*)?.-
>?

?.(?
?.?
0*0&/?

?2)#0/?=>? <?
?

?2)#0/?=>? <?
?
?2)#0/?
?
?
?
?
??
?
,.#30?2)./.3?/2. ?/,/?
?
,.#30?./.3?!.!/?
?
,.#30?./.3?1)(?/,/?
?
,2&#?/,/?
?
0*0&?.,.%/?
#?

??* ?0"?2)#1/?.?//#&?06,??
?5????2)#0/?
?.-2#.?
?
?,.*3#?
?

?2)#0???#%?/,/?,.?,2?(5??/,/?.-?
?
0*0&?,.*3#?
?
)?
?4&&#)!?2)#0/?
?6?,.?2?5???
?6?5?,.?4%?
?6??6?2(,/0.??2(,/0./?.- ?

?2(,/0./?,.*3#?
&2"*2/?
2#&#)!?
?
2#&#)!??
2#&#)!??
2#&#)!??
2#&#)!??
2#&#)!??
2#&#)!??
0*0'?
?/ ?

?/ ?

?/
?= ?* ?)0>?

April 17, 2022
City of Phoenix Planning and Development Dept., Zoning Division
200 W Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Hello All,

I am in opposition to the proposed case Z-138-F-83-5 Aldea Center development
includes a mix of higher-density housing types that expands past the allotted amount
while increasing density even further and reduces reasonable landscaping areas. This area
has no need for such a project especially considering all the local developments that offer
a variety of affordable housing options within the area. Throughout every narrative a limit
of 1,868 dwelling unit has been held even though density changes. This development
would be at the detriment to existing neighborhoods. It has been clearly shown that
throughout almost every request of amending this PUD to allow developers access to
build, local neighborhoods have paid the cost. The quality of life and my ability to enjoy
my home and neighborhood has been adversely affected. It seems hardly any effort to
discourage commercial development near the school and existing residential areas has
been made. Even though staff reports and subsequent narratives recommend areas for
development of housing be located towards the school and commercial use be away from
the school and homes, surprisingly, ongoing Aldea Phase ll construction is right next to the
school and existing homes. Moreover, in documents related to the PUD an illustration is
made that states it may be “more appropriate to locate permitted multi- family uses
close(r) to the existing Sonoran Sky Elementary School, while placing Commerce Park uses
away from the School and adjacent to the Canal, where, in this area, there are already open
industrial uses to the northeast and northwest.” This illustration was made to propose a
need to alter Grand Canal recommendations where now pedestrians and cyclists using the
Canal to access the New River Trail are bombarded by semi-truck and commercial fallout.
The proposed project site consequently is surrounded by almost nothing but commercial
property and will be bombarded by commercial semi-truck trafBc and noise. Aldea Phase
l and ll total development is almost 1,000,000 square feet combined. The PUD has been
designed in opposing fashion to maximize alternative commercial use at unnecessary
costs to the community by putting Commerce Park uses next to the school.

Even the location of this project is empirical evidence that the quality of life of
existing residents and especially potential future residents is not at the top of the list. The
Erik Espinoza
602-535-7802
erk85302@yahoo.com 5712 N 103rd Dr, Glendale AZ 85307

development of Aldea Phase l and ll has caused commercial trafBc to funnel into local
neighborhoods and school zones to the point that “No Through Truck" signs have been
approved by the City of Phoenix along Missouri Ave and 101st, Camelback and 101st ave,
103rd Dr and 105th ave. I personally have spent over one hundred hours documenting
and contacting multiple tenants and property owners of these projects and spent over a
year's time trying to reconcile just the trafBc issues. Despite multiple narratives stating the
risk of negatively impacting residential areas and schools, and ways to mitigate such
impacts, one can clearly see that these projects have lacked proper oversight or corporate
responsibility to prevent negative impacts on our neighborhoods and residential districts.

Understandably, one would expect some sort of corporate responsibility
especially when evidence shows that these projects are very proBtable. We are seeing
these projects being built just about anywhere possible. We hear there is a housing
shortage which is true, but the deeper truth of the matter is we are in shortage of available
affordable land. In the West Valley you will Bnd that existing areas originally zoned for
nonproBt agriculture are regularly being requested to be re-zoned to commercial/mixed
use high density instead of less dense residential. Among other variables, constant re-
zoning to allow these mixed use high density lots has caused corresponding lots to
increase in value resulting in single unit housing developments to be less proBtable or too
costly to build. One would argue we should let the market control what is required of the
area, but the area is being manipulated by large trusts and corporate endeavors to control
the market. The answer to affordable housing is to build affordable houses. The market is
being saturated by rentals.

According to the developer this area needs this development. Honestly, I live in
this area and know it does not. My experience is that proBt is the main motivator and
everything else comes second. Without a doubt developers take risk when investing and
should be rewarded with proBt, but one must acknowledge that the local residential
districts are not Blled with million dollar homes but regular everyday people with a
mortgage and families who have invested into the home and neighborhood. I ask you to
not only acknowledge the impact this and other similar developments have, but to take
action to prevent such occurrences.
Sincerely yours,

Erik Espinoza