Attachment B - Staff Report - PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
258737 characters
Staff Report: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
APPLICATION #:
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
LOCATION:
Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
EXISTING ZONING:
C-2
ACREAGE:
16.0
REQUEST:
1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for
approval by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
APPLICANT:
Law Office of David Cisiewski
OWNER:
Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval with a modification and additional stipulations, as recommended by the
Planning Hearing Officer.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on April 21, 2021 and recommended
approval with a modification and additional stipulations.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site is located on 16 acres approximately 400 feet east of the southeast
corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive and is zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial). The
applicant’s request only affects a portion of the 46.65 gross acres included in the original
rezoning request (Z-48-07-1).
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 2 of 9
The proposed site plan depicts a 170-unit multifamily complex consisting of detached,
stand-alone, single-story, bungalow-style residences at a density of 12.2 dwelling units
per gross acre. The proposed site plan depicts private backyards, covered parking, and
private open spaces including a linear central park, a pool, and connected pedestrian
pathways, constituting a total of 7.4 percent open space.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations for approval by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1 to develop the multifamily community on a
portion of the rezoning site. The applicant stated that when the property was rezoned to
C-2 in 2007 there was no site plan or elevations for the overall site.
The applicant has provided the following justifications for their requests:
x Stipulations 1.a and 1.b regarding elevations are being met through the revised
desert color palette.
x Stipulation 1.d regarding landscaping, arcades, and overhang, and Stipulation 1.e
regarding parking areas are more relevant to the development of a commercial
shopping center, which was assumed to be the most likely future land use in the
original rezoning case.
x Stipulation 1.f, regarding consideration of the site design for potential residential
uses to mitigate impacts of the I-17 is being met with an approximate 500-foot
setback from the I-17 frontage road.
x Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan is being met with the building
elevations’ inclusion of detailed accents throughout the development.
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 2, regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan. The applicant noted that a comprehensive sign plan would be
relevant if the larger site was being developed with multiple commercial uses and
requested that the comprehensive sign plan requirement exclude residential uses. The
applicant added that comprehensive sign plans are typically required in large commercial
developments rather than individual residential developments.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On August 29, 2007, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1
for a change from C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) and R1-8 (Single-Family Residence) to C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) on a 46.65 gross acre property located at the southeast
corner of Interstate 17 and Teresa Lane, subject to stipulations. The case was heard
concurrently with GPA-NWPA-1-06-1 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the subject property from Undesignated to Commercial.
These original cases were processed concurrent with the property’s annexation into the
City and the intent was to allow a commercial development on the site. However, the
possibility that residential uses may be developed was considered, as evidenced by the
conditions of Stipulation 1.f. The original rezoning case did not include a site plan or
elevations, resulting in Stipulation 1 requiring conceptual site plan, elevations and
architectural theme be approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 3 of 9
hearing process and establishing 7 criteria (Stipulations 1.a-1.g) for review. These
criteria included considerations relevant to the potential development of commercial land
uses including but not limited to drive-through design, shaded walkways on commercial
buildings, and commercial parking lot design. However, Stipulation 1.f addresses the
potential for residential land uses to develop in the C-2 zoning district and required
consideration of innovative site design, enhanced setbacks, sound barriers, and
landscaping to mitigate impacts from the proximity of the I-17.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Thirty-two letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns
expressed in the correspondence include the following:
x Increase in traffic along the I-17 frontage road (20 emails);
x The proposed development does not provide adequate amenities and open space
which may contribute to unintended use and degradation of existing amenities in
the Arroyo Norte subdivision to the east (16 emails);
x Potential overflow parking along Arroyo Norte Drive (13 emails);
x Development is not consistent or compatible with the character of existing
developments in the surrounding area (10 emails);
x Density is too high and incompatible with existing developments in the surrounding
area (10 emails);
x The proposed name of the development will create confusion by inferring a
connection to the Arroyo Norte subdivision to the east, located in Maricopa County
jurisdiction (8 emails);
x Increase in safety hazards due to emergency vehicles’ inability to access existing
neighborhoods (8 emails);
x Development does not meet the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines (2 emails)
x Lack of an approved Traffic Study (6 emails)
x The development will create negative impacts regarding nearby washes during
rain events (3 emails);
x Increase in fire hazards (3 emails);
x The development will burden existing water infrastructure in the surrounding area
(2 emails);
x Increase in crime rate resulting from lower income housing options (2 emails);
x Public notification sign for the Planning Hearing Officer hearing was not readily
visible (1 email);
x Decrease in property values (1 email).
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Commercial
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 4 of 9
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning
Land Use
On-site:
C-2
Vacant
North:
C-2
Vacant
(Across Arroyo Norte Drive)
South:
County (R1-6)
Single-family residential
East:
County (R1-6)
Single-family residential
West:
C-2
Vacant
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021
meeting and continued the request to the April 13, 2021 meeting by a vote of 5 to 0. The
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their April 13, 2021 meeting
and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 2.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:
1) The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with commercial
uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in the original application,
it was unknown at the time how the site would ultimately develop, what specific
uses would be implemented, and the scale and intensity of future development.
Therefore, Stipulation 1 was adopted to require Planning Hearing Officer review
through the public hearing process once these became available. However, this
stipulation did recognize that the site may develop with residential uses as
permitted in the approved C-2 zoning designation. Stipulation 1.f directly
addressed this by establishing criteria for mitigating impacts of the I-17 on
potential residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit multifamily
complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences. The proposed
density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less than the 17.40 dwelling
units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD development option with bonus
points. The proposed height is less than the two stories and 30 feet permitted in
the R-3 PRD development option. Proposed open space is approximately 1.18
acres or 7.4 percent of the gross site area, which is greater than the minimum 5
percent required. The proposed residences are detached stand-alone units rather
than a traditional multifamily apartment complex. The scale and intensity of the
proposal is appropriate for its location along the I-17 freeway corridor, consistent
with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use map designation, and creates
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 5 of 9
a buffer between existing single-family development to the east, adjacent
commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway corridor.
2) Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the review of the
site plan and elevations. General conformance to the proposed conceptual site
plan and elevations is recommended as discussed in these findings.
3) Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations regarding
building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. This
stipulation was originally intended to address the potential development of the site
with multiple commercial uses. With the conversion of this stipulation to general
conformance for the proposed residential development, these concerns are not
wholly relevant. However, the residential elevations do provide an appropriate
level of consistency while still providing for architectural diversity with three home
styles. Architectural features include multiple window styles, decorative window
treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent colors, and varied rooflines.
4) Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate for a
desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof tiles.
Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco. Accent colors
are limited to front doors.
5) The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color palette
intended to address concerns raised during public outreach regarding the
compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations submitted with the
request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue, and red accent doors and a
Mediterranean palette. However, the revised elevations were limited to single-
perspective renderings, did not incorporate the new door colors on the revised
palette, and did not include the level of detail on the four-sided elevations in the
original submittal. Therefore, an additional stipulation is recommended that
addresses the use of colors that blend with the desert environment, prohibiting
reflective materials, and limiting accent colors. The revised color palette date
stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this stipulation. However, the
stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in reviewing the final palette as there
is no building elevation that depicts all the appropriate colors in a single image.
6) Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are addressed in
the applicant’s submittal as follows:
a) Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is located along
Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road, which will allow a
continuous perimeter wall along the west property line. No units front the west
property line and there are private yards located along this area.
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 6 of 9
b) Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-17
frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between the I-17
and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large parcel, subject to the
stipulations of this case, and an approximately 70-foot wide drainage channel.
c) Sound barriers – A six-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the west
perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does not contain
the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest unit will be setback
approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
d) Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a variety of
large and medium canopy shade trees along the west property line in open
spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow, oak, and ash. However, the
majority of the west property line consists of private yards and trees are not
depicted. The fact that the subject property does not contain the parcel
adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and the closest unit will be setback
approximately 500 feet from the I-17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced
landscaping standards in this area. The property is subject to existing
Ordinance standards for landscaping in multifamily developments. The
remaining parcel between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this
stipulation and landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for
these plans.
7) Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that were
relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple commercial users.
Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the considerations are reflected in the
conceptual elevations and the recommendation for general conformance.
8) Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was relevant to the
assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would develop with multiple
commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant to the development of the site
with a single multifamily development. The applicant’s request to modify this
stipulation is recommended to be approved with a modification to the standard
language to specify that this requirement is only relevant to development
proposals for commercial land uses.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1.
That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site
plan(s) and elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28,
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 7 of 9
2021, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a.
Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b.
The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
c.
Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are
not directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d.
Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e.
That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
f.
Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g.
An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i)
Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
ii)
Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii)
Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 8 of 9
iv)
Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as
walls interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and
finished with materials similar to those of the buildings’
architectural detailing.
2.
That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan
approval for the first phase of development.
3.
That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.
4.
That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of
the freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
5.
That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved
or modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6.
That The applicant shall 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. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary
based on the results of the survey.
7.
That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be
notified by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of
any PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site
plan meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer
hearings:
a.
New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b.
Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c.
Terry Marron
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
Page 9 of 9
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8.
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 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.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be approved with a modification and additional
stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
EXHIBITS
A – Appeal Documents (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (39 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Ordinance G-4948 from Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1 (8 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped January 28, 2021 (1 pages)
H – Proposed Elevations date stamped January 28, 2021 (13 pages)
I – Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Minutes from March 9, 2021 (6 pages)
J – Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Minutes from April 13, 2021 (12 pages)
K – PHO Summary for PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 (11 pages)
L – Public Correspondence (95 pages)
(;+,%,7$
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2021\PHO Appeal Form.doc
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER:
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
LOCATION:
Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
PHO HEARING DATE:
4/21/2021
RECEIVED:
4/28/2021
APPEALED BY:
Opposition
Applicant
APPEALED TO:
PLANNING
COMMISSION
6/3/2021 at 6:00 p.m.
TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL
7/1/2021 at 10:00 a.m.
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS:
PHONE:
Richard Zimmerman
46026 North 35th Avenue
New River, Arizona 85087
602-527-6938
RECEIPT NUMBER:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The development backs street infrastructure. The area lacks Fire/Police
infrastructure. The frontage road is a fatality waiting to happen. This is irresponsible of
C.O.P. to develop this area before the infrastructure is in place to support it.
TAKEN BY:
Eric Morales, Planner II
c:
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
$GDP6WUDQLHUL
Danielle Jordan
5D
'HVKD:LOOLDPV
Victoria Cipolla-Murillo
JuliH*DUFLD
Ben Ernyei - Posting
GIS Team
(;+,%,7%
L A W O F F I C E O F D A V I D C I S I E W S K I , P L L C
1 1 8 1 1 N o r t h T a t u m B l v d , S u i t e 1 0 5 1 , P h o e n i x , A Z 8 5 0 2 8
Telephone: 602.953.8729 Facsimile: 602.997.9807 Email: dave@dclawaz.com Web: www.dclawaz.com
)HEUXDU\
3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU
&LW\RI3KRHQL[
3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
:HVW:DVKLQJWRQ6WUHHWQG)ORRU
3KRHQL[$UL]RQD
5H
$SSOLFDWLRQIRU6DWLVIDFWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQV 5HYLVHG
=RQLQJ&DVH =
3URMHFW±$ULVH$UUR\R1RUWH
'HDU3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU
7KLV ILUP UHSUHVHQWV )'*$FTXLVLWLRQV //& ³)'*´ WKHGHYHORSHURI$ULVH$UUR\R
1RUWHDXQLWOX[XU\VLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOFRPPXQLW\ WKH³3URMHFW´RU³&RPPXQLW\´ 7KH
3URMHFWLVSURSRVHGWREHGHYHORSHGXSRQDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHSRUWLRQRIDDFUH
SDUFHO 0DULFRSD&RXQW\$VVHVVRU¶V3DUFHO- ORFDWHGHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI
WKH , )URQWDJH 5RDG DQG $UUR\R 1RUWH 'ULYH WKH ³3URSHUW\´ RU ³6LWH´ 7KH UHPDLQLQJ
SRUWLRQVRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWFRQWDLQLQJWKH3URSHUW\ WKH³5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHO´ DUHQRWSURSRVHGIRU
GHYHORSPHQWDWWKLVWLPH$DHULDOSKRWRRIWKH3URSHUW\DQGWKH5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHODUHSURYLGHG
EHORZ
7KH HQWLUHW\ RI WKH 3URSHUW\ DQG WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DUH FXUUHQWO\ YDFDQW DQG
XQGHYHORSHG7KURXJKWKLV$SSOLFDWLRQWKH$SSOLFDQWLVSURSRVLQJWRGHYHORSDXQLWOX[XU\
VLQJOHIDPLO\ UHQWDO FRPPXQLW\ XSRQ WKH 3URSHUW\ 7KH 3URMHFWZLOO SURYLGH QHZ DQG PRUH
GLYHUVH KRXVLQJ RSWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKLV DUHD RI WKH &LW\ DV D EHQHILW WR WKH RYHUDOO UHVLGHQWLDO
FKDUDFWHURIWKHDUHD
$
%DFNJURXQG
7KH 3URSHUW\ DV ZHOO DV WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZHUH SDUW RI ]RQLQJ FDVH =
³5H]RQLQJ´ ZKLFKZDVDSSURYHGE\WKH3KRHQL[&LW\&RXQFLORQ-XO\DV2UGLQDQFH
1R* $FRS\RIWKH5H]RQLQJLVDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW$7KH5H]RQLQJFKDQJHG
WKH ODQG XVH GHVLJQDWLRQV RQ DFUHV IURP & 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO DQG 5
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQFH WR& ,QWHUPHGLDWH&RPPHUFLDO 7KHDUHDVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJ
LVGHSLFWHGRQWKHPDSEHORZ$WWKHWLPHRIWKH5H]RQLQJWKHUHZDVQRVSHFLILFGHYHORSPHQW
SODQ IRU WKH 3URSHUW\ RU WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DQG WKHUHIRUH VWLSXODWLRQV ZHUH LQFOXGHG WR
DGGUHVV IXWXUH DSSURYDO RI WKH VLWH SODQV DQG HOHYDWLRQV IRU WKH VHSDUDWH SDUFHOV WKDW ZHUH
LQFOXGHGDVSDUWRIWKH5H]RQLQJ$WWKHFXUUHQWWLPHWKHUHLVQRSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKH
5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHODQGWKLV$SSOLFDWLRQUHODWHVRQO\WRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRI5H]RQLQJVWLSXODWLRQV
IRUWKH3URSHUW\
%
6XUURXQGLQJ8VHV =RQLQJ
7KHH[LVWLQJ]RQLQJDQGODQGXVHVVXUURXQGLQJWKH3URSHUW\DUHDVIROORZVDQGVKRZQDERYHRQ
WKH=RQLQJ0DS
'LUHFWLRQ
=RQLQJ
8VH
1RUWK
& &LW\RI3KRHQL[
9DFDQW
(DVW
5 0DULFRSD&RXQW\
6LQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO $UUR\R1RUWH
6RXWK
5 0DULFRSD&RXQW\
6LQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO $QWKHP8QLW
:HVW
& &LW\RI3KRHQL[
9DFDQW
&
3URSRVHG5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ
$ULVH$UUR\R1RUWHLVDOX[XU\VLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOFRPPXQLW\FHQWHUHGDURXQGDODUJH
FHQWUDO SDUN DQG DPHQLW\ DUHD 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV ZLOO LQFOXGH DQG
EHGURRPXQLWVZLWKSULYDWHHQWULHVDQGJDWHGUHDU\DUGV7KH&RPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHVZLOOLQFOXGH
DSRROFDEDQDVDGRJSDUNDQGRWKHUVPDOOHUSDUNVDQGFRPPRQDUHDVGLVEXUVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH
&RPPXQLW\WRSURYLGHHDV\DFFHVVWRRSHQVSDFHIRUDOOUHVLGHQWV7KHPDLQHQWU\ZLOOEHDWWKH
QRUWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKH&RPPXQLW\ZLWKDVHFRQGDU\HJUHVVRQO\DFFHVVGULYHDWWKHQRUWKHDVW
FRUQHURIWKH3URSHUW\$FFHVVWRWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVLVSURYLGHGYLDDORRSURDGWKDWWUDYHUVHWKH
&RPPXQLW\WRSURYLGHHDVHYHKLFXODUDFFHVVWRDOOWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDQGWKHSDUNLQJDUHDV
)XUWKHU3URMHFWVSHFLILFGHWDLOVLQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
8QLW6XPPDU\8QLW
3ODQ
6T)W
%HG%DWK
RI8QLWV
0L[
3ODQ
3ODQ
)/(;
3ODQ
7RWDO
3DUNLQJ6XPPDU\5HTXLUHG3DUNLQJ
3URYLGHG3DUNLQJ
VSDFHVSHUXQLW
$VVLJQHGFDUSRUWVSDFHV
$VVLJQHGJDUDJHVSDFHV
8QDVVLJQHGVSDFHV
/HDVLQJ2IILFH
7RWDO
6LWH&RYHUDJH7\SH
6T)W
$FUHV
7RWDO
%XLOGLQJ&RYHUDJH
5RDGV 3DUNLQJ
3ULYDWH<DUGV/DQGVFDSLQJ
$PHQLWLHV
'UDLQDJH(DVHPHQW
7RWDO
7KHIROORZLQJ([KLELWVDUHDWWDFKHGWRWKH$SSOLFDWLRQWRLOOXVWUDWHWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
GHVLJQHOHPHQWVIRUWKH&RPPXQLW\DQGVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHUHTXLVLWH=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQV
([KLELW$5H]RQLQJ
([KLELW%6LWH3ODQ
([KLELW&/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
([KLELW'%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQV
([KLELW(0DWHULDOV &RORUV3ODQ
([KLELW)'HVLJQ'HWDLOV
'
7H[WRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQVDQG6DWLVIDFWLRQ5DWLRQDOH
6RDVWRSURYLGHIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH3URSHUW\LQFRQIRUPDQFHZLWKWKHVWLSXODWLRQVVHW
IRUWK LQ WKH 5H]RQLQJ ³=RQLQJ 6WLSXODWLRQ´ WKH $SSOLFDQW RIIHUV WKH IROORZLQJ UDWLRQDOH LQ
VDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQV
7KDWFRQFHSWXDOVLWHSODQ V DQGHOHYDWLRQVVKDOOEHDSSURYHGE\WKH3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ
2IILFHU WKURXJK D SXEOLF KHDULQJ SURFHVV SULRU WR 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV 'HSDUWPHQW
SUHOLPLQDU\ VLWH SODQ DSSURYDO 7KH VLWH SODQ V DQG HOHYDWLRQV VKDOO LQFOXGH WKH
IROORZLQJ
D
(OHYDWLRQVZKLFKSURYLGHDUFKLWHFWXUDOFRQVLVWHQF\LQEXLOGLQJPDVVDQGVW\OHZDOO
WUHDWPHQWVOLJKWLQJDQGVLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ
$V VKRZQ RQ WKH %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV
DWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW'WKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDVZHOODVWKHRWKHU
VWUXFWXUHV ZLWKLQ WKH &RPPXQLW\ SURYLGH DQ DHVWKHWLFDOO\ SOHDVLQJ DUFKLWHFWXUDO
WKHPH XVLQJ QHXWUDO WRQHV DQG DFFHQW FRORUV 7KH SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJV SURYLGH D
FRKHVLYHDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQWKURXJKRXWWKH&RPPXQLW\IHDWXULQJVWXFFRH[WHULRU
ZDOOV FRPSOLPHQWDU\ WLOH URRIV DQG DFFHQW ZLGRZ DQG GRRU WUHDWPHQWV $OO
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVZLOOEHVLQJOHVWRU\GHVLJQZLWKDSULYDWHUHDU\DUG
7KH &RPPXQLW\ ZLOO SURYLGH IRU D SHULPHWHU PDVRQU\ ZDOO ZLWK DUFKLWHFWXUDO
HOHPHQWVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRPSOLPHQWDU\WRWKHGHVLJQHOHPHQWVUHIOHFWHGRQWKH
%XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV DV GHSLFWHG RQ WKH 'HVLJQ 'HWDLOV 3ODQ DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV
([KLELW)7KH&RPPXQLW\ZLOODOVRLQFOXGLQJOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVWRSURYLGHIRUVWUHHW
OLJKWLQJSDWKZD\DQGDUHDOLJKWLQJDQGDFFHQWODQGVFDSLQJOLJKWLQJXVLQJXQLIRUP
IL[WXUHVZLWKVXFKIL[WXUHVEHLQJDVGHSLFWHGRQ([KLELW)
E 7KHSULPDU\ILQLVKLQJPDWHULDOVIRUEXLOGLQJVVKDOOFRQVLVWRIQDWXUDOGHVHUWPDWHULDOV
ZKLFKDUHDSSURSULDWHIRUWKHQDWXUDOGHVHUWFRQWH[W
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ
$VVKRZQRQWKH0DWHULDOV &RORU3ODQ
DWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW(WKHPDWHULDOVSURSRVHGIRUWKH&RPPXQLW\EXLOGLQJV
FRQVLVW RI H[WHULRU VWXFFR ZDOO LQ D ³6QRZERXQG´ FRORU WKURXJKRXW WKH 3URMHFW
(DFK EXLOGLQJ ZLOO IHDWXUH URRIV LQ D FRPSOLPHQWDU\ ³%DUFHORQD 7HUUD &RWWD´
FRORU SURYLGLQJ DQ DSSHDOLQJ FRQWUDVW RI FRORU DQG WH[WXUH WKURXJKRXW WKH
GHYHORSPHQW)XUWKHUWKH&RPPXQLW\ZLOOIHDWXUHFRORUVWKDWQRWRQO\EOHQGZHOO
ZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJQDWXUDOGHVHUWODQGVFDSHEXWDUHDOVRKLJKO\FRPSDWLEOHZLWK
WKH H[LVWLQJ UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQWV WR WKH LPPHGLDWH HDVW DQG VRXWK RI WKH
3URSHUW\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ SHULPHWHU ZDOOV ZLOO EH FRQVWUXFWHG RI VSOLWIDFHG &08
EORFNZLWKVXSSRUWFROXPQVDQGFDSVWRQHRIDFRPSOLPHQWDU\PDWHULDO
F
'ULYHWKUX IDFLOLWLHV VKDOO EH RULHQWHG VR WKDW GULYHWKUX ZLQGRZV DUH QRW GLUHFWO\
YLVLEOHIURPDGMDFHQWSXEOLFVWUHHWV
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ
7KLV FRQGLWLRQ LV QRW DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH
SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQW EXW ZLOO EH DGGUHVV LQ WKH IXWXUH FRPPHUFLDO
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJSRUWLRQVRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJ
G /DQGVFDSLQJDUFDGHVRURYHUKDQJVZKLFKSURYLGHVKDGHGZDONZD\VVKDOOEHXWLOL]HG
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ
:KLOH WKLV 6WLSXODWLRQ LV JHQHUDOO\ PRUH
DSSOLFDEOH WR D FRPPHUFLDO GHYHORSPHQW DV ZDV RULJLQDOO\ FRQWHPSODWHG IRU WKLV
3URSHUW\ WKH SURSRVHG &RPPXQLW\ ZLOO SURYLGH ODQGVFDSHG DUHDV WKURXJK WKH
GHYHORSPHQW LQFOXGLQJ D ODUJH FHQWUDOO\ ORFDWHG SDUN IRU WKH HQMR\PHQW RI DOO
UHVLGHQWV$VGHSLFWHGRQWKH/DQGVFDSH3ODQVDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW&7UHHV
DQG VKUXEV DUH ZHOO GLVEXUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH &RPPXQLW\ WR SURYLGH ERWK H\H
DSSHDOLQJ FRPPRQ DUHDV VKDGH DGMDFHQW WR YHKLFXODU SDUNLQJ DUHDV DV ZHOO DV
VKDGHDORQJWKHSDWKVFRQQHFWLQJWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWV
H
7KDW SDUNLQJ DUHDV VKDOO EH GHVLJQHG ZLWK ODQGVFDSHG DUHDV WR EUHDN XS WKH ODUJH
H[SDQVHRISDUNLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ
7KH
&RPPXQLW\
SDUNLQJ
DUHDV
DV
LOOXVWUDWHGRQWKHDWWDFKHG6LWH3ODQ ([KLELW% DQG/DQGVFDSH3ODQV ([KLELW&
DUH GLVEXUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH &RPPXQLW\ WR SURYLGH HDV\ DFFHVV WR WKH UHVLGHQWV
EHWZHHQWKHOLYLQJXQLWVWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHV$VGHVLJQHG
WKH &RPPXQLW\ GRHV QRW SURYLGH DQ\ ODUJH H[SDQVLYH SDUNLQJ ILHOGV EXW UDWKHU
VPDOOHUDUHDVRIFDUSRUWFRYHUHGSDUNLQJSULYDWHJDUDJHVDQGRWKHUSDUNLQJDUHDV
WRVHUYLFHWKHQHHGVRIWKHUHVLGHQWV$GGLWLRQDOO\ODQGVFDSLQJKDVEHHQORFDWHG
DGMDFHQWWRSDUNLQJDUHDVWRSURYLGHERWKVKDGHDQGYLVXDODSSHDOWKURXJKRXWWKH
&RPPXQLW\
I
6SHFLDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ VKDOO EH JLYHQ WR VLWH GHVLJQ IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV DGHTXDWHO\
PLWLJDWHWKHLPSDFWV RI WKHSUR[LPLW\ WR ,QWHUVWDWHVXFKLQQRYDWLYHVLWHGHVLJQ
LQFUHDVHGVHWEDFNVVRXQGEDUULHUVDQGLQFUHDVHGODQGVFDSLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ
7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO &RPPXQLW\ KDV
EHHQORFDWHGLQWKHIDUHDVWHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJVR
DVWRSURYLGHWKHPD[LPXPGLVWDQFHEXIIHUEHWZHHQWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHVDQG
,QWHUVWDWH $V LOOXVWUDWHG RQ WKH 6LWH 3ODQ DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV ([KLELW % WKH
GLVWDQFHIURPWKHFORVHVWSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHWRWKH,QWHUVWDWHLVLQH[FHVVRI
IHHW$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHSURSRVHG&RPPXQLW\LVVHSDUDWHGIURPWKH,QWHUVWDWHE\WKH
ZHVWHUQSHULPHWHUZDOORIWKH&RPPXQLW\DQDSSUR[LPDWHO\IRRWZLGHGUDLQDJH
FKDQQHODQGDODUJHWUDFWRIODQGZKLFKPD\EHGHYHORSHGLQWKHIXWXUHZLWKXVHV
DOORZHG XQGHU WKH 5H]RQLQJ 7KH QDWXUDO DQG PDQPDGH EXIIHUV DORQJ ZLWK D
VXEVWDQWLDOVHSDUDWLRQGLVWDQFHZLOOSURYLGHPRUHWKDQDGHTXDWHEXIIHULQJRIQRLVH
DQGRWKHULPSDFWVJHQHUDWHGIURP,QWHUVWDWH
J $QDUFKLWHFWXUDOSODQVKDOOEHDSSURYHGZLWKWKHHOHYDWLRQV7KHDUFKLWHFWXUDOSODQ
VKDOO FRQYH\ D VHQVH RI FRQWLQXLW\ WKURXJKRXW WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG DW D PLQLPXP
LQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
L
1DWXUDO DFFHQW PDWHULDOV VXFK DV EULFN VWRQH RU WLOH IRU EXLOGLQJV DQG
VLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $VVKRZQRQWKHDWWDFKHG0DWHULDOV
DQG &RORU 3ODQ ([KLELW ( DQG %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV ([KLELW ' WKH
SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOV FRQVLVW RI H[WHULRU VWXFFR ZDOOV DQG WLOH
URRIV'HVHUWWRQHFRORUVDUHSURYLGHGWKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLWK
DFFHQW FRORUV EHLQJ XVHG RQ WKH UHVLGHQWLDO XQLW GRRUV DQG ZLQGRZ
FRUQLFHVIRUDSSHDO
LL
$UFKLWHFWXUDOGHWDLOLQJVXFKDVUHFHVVHVSRSRXWVVKDGHZDOOVSDUDSHWV
DUWLVWLFLQVHWVRUSLODVWHUV
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV DV
VKRZQ RQ WKH DWWDFKHG %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV ([KLELW & SURYLGH IRU
UHFHVVHGHQWULHVZLQGRZFRUQLFHVDQGURRIOLQHDFFHQWVWRHQKDQFHWKH
DUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHURIWKH&RPPXQLW\
LLL
6WUHHW DSSXUWHQDQFHV VXFK DV EHQFKHV VHDWZDOOV UDPDGDV VKDGH
VWUXFWXUHVWUDVKHQFORVXUHVOLJKWLQJDQGZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHG&RPPXQLW\IHDWXUHVD
ZHOOGHVLJQHG VWUHHWVFDSH DORQJ WKH ORRS URDG SURYLGLQJ DFFHVV WR WKH
HQWLUH&RPPXQLW\/RFDWHGDORQJWKLVSULYDWHVWUHHWLVDPSOHSDUNLQJ
ERWKFRYHUHGDQGRSHQIRUWKHXVHDQGEHQHILWRIWKHUHVLGHQWV7UDVK
HQFORVXUHVDUHGLVEXUVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH&RPPXQLW\IRUHDV\DFFHVVE\
WKHUHVLGHQWVDQGHDVHRI UHIXVH FROOHFWLRQ&RQQHFWLYHZDONZD\VDQG
ODQGVFDSLQJ DUH SURYLGHG DORQJ WKH VWUHHW WR SURYLGH GLUHFW DQG HDV\
DFFHVV IRU WKH UHVLGHQWV IURP WKH UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV WR WKH SDUNLQJ
IDFLOLWLHV DV ZHOO DV WKH FRPPXQLW\ DPHQLWLHV DQG SDUNV ORFDWHG
WKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQW6WUHHWOLJKWLQJDQGDFFHQWOLJKWVDUHDOVR
SURYLGHWKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKHVDIHW\DQGDHVWKHWLFDSSHDO
WRWKHUHVLGHQWV
LY
'HWDLOVHFWLRQVIRUVFUHHQLQJDQGSHULPHWHUZDOOVDVZHOODVZDOOVLQWHULRU
WRWKHVLWH VDLGZDOOVVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGDQGILQLVKHGZLWKPDWHULDOVVLPLODU
WRWKRVHRIWKHEXLOGLQJV¶DUFKLWHFWXUDOGHWDLOLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V
VKRZQ RQ
'HVLJQ 'HWDLOV
LQFOXGHGDV([KLELW)WKH&RPPXQLW\ZLOOSURYLGHIRUDSHULPHWHUZDOO
DORQJWKHHQWLUHSHULPHWHURIWKHGHYHORSPHQW7KHSHULPHWHUZDOOZLOO
IHDWXUHVSOLWIDFHGEORFNPDVRQU\FRQVWUXFWLRQZLWKDUFKLWHFWXUDODFFHQWV
FRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRPSOLPHQWDU\WRWKH%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQVWRSURYLGH
IRU DQ RYHUDOO FRQVLVWHQW DUFKLWHFWXUDO WKHPH $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKURXJKRXW
WKH &RPPXQLW\ YLHZ IHQFLQJ ZLOO EH SURYLGHG ZLWK VXFK YLHZ IHQFLQJ
IHDWXULQJDFRQVLVWHQWDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQIRUWKHVXSSRUWLQJFROXPQV
7KDW D FRPSUHKHQVLYH VLJQ SODQ IRU WKH HQWLUH SURSHUW\ H[FOXGLQJ WKDW SRUWLRQ EHLQJ
GHYHORSHG IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV VKDOO EH DSSURYHG E\ WKH =RQLQJ $GPLQLVWUDWRU LQ
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 6HFWLRQ RI WKH =RQLQJ 2UGLQDQFH SULRU WR 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV
'HSDUWPHQWILQDOVLWHSODQDSSURYDOIRUWKHILUVWSKDVHRIGHYHORSPHQW
5DWLRQDOHIRU0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH
3URSHUW\ LV EHLQJ SURFHVVHG DV D VHSDUDWH DQG GLVFUHWH UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQW QRW
RWKHUZLVHFRQQHFWHGWRWKHODWHUGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHO$WWKLVWLPHLW
LV XQFOHDU KRZ WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZLOO EH GHYHORSHG DQG VLJQDJH IRU DQ\ IXWXUH
GHYHORSPHQW XSRQ WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZLOO EH PRUH IXOO\ GHILQHG WKURXJK WKH
VXEVHTXHQWHQWLWOHPHQWDQGUHYLHZSURFHVVHV$GGLWLRQDOO\WKH6WLSXODWLRQUHJDUGLQJD
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVLJQSODQLVPRUHDSSURSULDWHO\UHODWHGWRWKHSUHYLRXVO\FRQWHPSODWHG
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHHQWLUHWUDFWDVDQLQWHJUDWHGFRPPHUFLDOGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKLVQRW
WKHFXUUHQWGHYHORSPHQWSODQ7KHUHIRUHWKH$SSOLFDQWUHTXHVWWKDWWKLV6WLSXODWLRQEH
PRGLILHG WR H[FOXGH WKH 3URSHUW\ EHLQJ GHYHORSHG IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV IURP DQ\
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVLJQSODQ
7KDWIHHWRIULJKWRIZD\VKDOOEHGHGLFDWHGIRUWKHVRXWKKDOIRI7HUHVD/DQHRUDV
RWKHUZLVHDSSURYHGE\WKH'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV'HSDUWPHQW
7KDW DGGLWLRQDO ULJKWRIZD\ VKDOO EH GHGLFDWHG IRU WKH IXWXUH H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH
IUHHZD\IURQWDJHURDGDVDSSURYHGE\WKH6WUHHW7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQW
7KDWWKH'HYHORSHUVKDOOFRQVWUXFWDOOVWUHHWVZLWKLQDQGDGMDFHQWWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLWK
SDYLQJFXUEJXWWHUVLGHZDONFXUEUDPSVVWUHHWOLJKWVPHGLDQLVODQGVODQGVFDSLQJDQG
RWKHU LQFLGHQWDOV DV SHU WKH SODQV DSSURYHG RU PRGLILHG E\ WKH 6WUHHW 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
'HSDUWPHQW
7KDWWKHDSSOLFDQWVKDOOVXEPLWDQDUFKDHRORJLFDOVXUYH\UHSRUWRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWDUH
IRU UHYLHZ DQG DSSURYDO E\ WKH &LW\ $UFKDHRORJLVW SULRU WR FOHDULQJ DQG JUXEELQJ
ODQGVFDSLQJVDOYDJHDQGRUJUDGLQJ)XUWKHUDUFKDHRORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJDQGRUWHVWLQJ
WUHQFKLQJ PD\EHQHFHVVDU\EDVHGRQWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHVXUYH\
7KDW WKH IROORZLQJ SHUVRQV RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG DVVRFLDWLRQV VKDOO EH QRWLILHG E\ WKH
DSSOLFDQWDWOHDVWGD\VEHIRUHWKHPHHWLQJRUKHDULQJRIDQ\'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV
'HSDUWPHQW SUHOLPLQDU\ VLWH SODQ PHHWLQJV =RQLQJ $GMXVWPHQW KHDULQJV RU 3ODQQLQJ
+HDULQJ2IILFHUKHDULQJV
D
1HZ5LYHU'HVHUW+LOOV&RPPXQLW\$VVRFLDWLRQ,QF
(&DUHIUHH+LJKZD\
3KRHQL[$=
E
6KDUHHQ*RRGURDG
VFJRRGURDG#PVQFRP
F
7HUU\0DUURQ
WPDUURQ#\DKRRFRP
(
&RQFOXVLRQ
%DVHG XSRQ WKH SURSRVHG GHVLJQ DQG GHYHORSPHQW HOHPHQWV RI WKH &RPPXQLW\ WKH
XQLIRUP DQG FRPSDWLEOH DUFKLWHFWXUDO WKHPH DQG QDWXUH RI WKH SURSRVHG PXOWLIDPLO\
GHYHORSPHQWXSRQWKH3URSHUW\WKH&RPPXQLW\KDVEHHQGHVLJQHGLQVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHUHOHYDQW
6WLSXODWLRQVVHWIRUWKLQWKH5H]RQLQJ
([KLELW$5H]RQLQJ
([KLELW%±6LWH3ODQ
([KLELW&/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
$
$
)'*$&48,6,7,216//&
3+2(1,;$=
$5,6($552<21257(
:2/)5'
3+
)$;
3$/0'(6(57&$
+(50$11'(6,*1 *5283
68,7(
$=/,&
([KLELW'%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQV
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
9RQ.DUPDQ$YHQXH6XLWH
,UYLQH&$
NWJ\FRP
$552<21257(
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
6&$/(
)5217
5($5
/()7
5,*+7
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9(
)52173(563(&7,9(
5($53(563(&7,9(
/()73(563(&7,9(
.,7&+(1
[
*5($7
5220
[
%('5220
[
:+
:'
%$7+
&2$76
6725$*(
325&+
3$175<
3$7,2
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
6&$/(
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
/()7
5,*+7
)5217
5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9(
)52173(563(&7,9(
5($53(563(&7,9(
/()73(563(&7,9(
.,7&+(1
[
*5($7
5220
[
%('5220
[
:+
:'
%$7+
&2$76
6725$*(
325&+
)/(;
[
:,&
3$7,2
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
6&$/(
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
)5217
5($5
/()7
5,*+7
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9(
)52173(563(&7,9(
5($53(563(&7,9(
/()73(563(&7,9(
.,7&+(1
[
*5($7
5220
[
35,0$5<
%('5220
[
:+
:'
35,0$5<
%$7+
&2$76
6725$*(
325&+
6(&21'$5<
%('5220
[
:,&
6(&1'5<
%$7+
3$7,2
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
6&$/(
([KLELW(0DWHULDOV &RORUV3ODQ
& 2 / 2 5 0 $7 ( 5 , $ / % 2 $ 5 '
)DPLO\'HYHORSPHQW
)UHG:DULQJ'ULYH
3DOP'HVHUW&$
ZZZIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWKRPHVFRP
3+2(1,;$=
$5,6($552<21257(
-$18$5<
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
NWJ\FRP
678&&2%2'<
6:612:%281'
678&&2%2'<
6:612:%281'
678&&2%2'<
6:612:%281'
$&&(17&$532576*$5$*('2256
6:,17(//(&78$/*5$<
$&&(17&$532576*$5$*('2256
6:,17(//(&78$/*5$<
$&&(17&$532576*$5$*('2256
6:,17(//(&78$/*5$<
)5217'2256
6:5$9(5('
)5217'2256
6:*2/'&5(67
)5217'2256
6: *(25*,$1%$<
3/$1
3/$1
3/$1
522),1*
%25$/%$5&(/21$7(55$&277$)/$6+('
522),1*
%25$/%$5&(/21$7(55$&277$)/$6+('
522),1*
%25$/%$5&(/21$7(55$&277$)/$6+('
([KLELW)'HVLJQ'HWDLOV
)'*$&48,6,7,216//&
3+2(1,;$=
$5,6($552<21257(
:2/)5'
3+
)$;
3$/0'(6(57&$
+(50$11'(6,*1 *5283
68,7(
$=/,&
(;+,%,7&
N BLACK CANYON AC
N I17@ANTHEM SB NO
W ARROYO NORTE DR
N RALEIGH WAY
N I17@ANTHEM NB NO
N H
EAV
EN
LY WAY
N HUDSON TL
W PLYMOUT
H
DR
W LAPENA DR
W ARACELY
DR
W BINGHAM
DR
W OLD WEST TL
N BLACK CANYON HWY
N HUDSON TRL
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Property Location: $SSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI,DQG
$UUR\R1RUWH'ULYH
0
240
480
120
Feet ´
(;+,%,7'
N BLACK CANYON AC
N I17@ANTHEM SB NO
W ARROYO NORTE DR
N RALEIGH WAY
N I17@ANTHEM NB NO
N H
EAV
EN
LY WAY
N HUDSON TL
W PLYMOUT
H
DR
W LAPENA DR
W ARACELY
DR
W BINGHAM
DR
W OLD WEST TL
N BLACK CANYON HWY
N HUDSON TRL
C-2
C-2*
C-2*
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Property Location: $SSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI,DQG
$UUR\R1RUWH'ULYH
0
240
480
120
Feet ´
(;+,%,7(
(;+,%,7)
MARICOPA
Phoenix City Limits
MARICOPA
COUNTY
OLD WEST TRAIL
TERESA LN
(39TH AVE)
!"c$
BLACK CANYON AC
APP
S-1
Z-160-05
400
0
400
200
Feet
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
APPLICANT'S NAME:
DATE:
REVISION DATES:
REQUESTED CHANGE:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
FROM:
TO:
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT:
NORTH
DESERT HILLS DR
I-17
NE
W
R
IVER RD
PY
R
AMI
D PE
A
K
PK
W
Y
!!!"c$
Z-48-07
APPLICATION NO.
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
04-19-2007
NEW VILLAGE VILLAGE
46.66 Acres
Z-48-07
C-1, (20.93 ac) Pending
R1-8 , (25.73 ac) Pending
Q70-19
U6
C-2, (46.66 ac)
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION
(N:\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2007\Z-48-07.mxd) 6/11/2007
1
C-1 / R1-8
C-2
303 / 103
676
364 / 133
812
06-11-2007
(;+,%,7*
(;+,%,7+
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Architecture + Planning
17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
A R R O Y O N O R T E
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
0
2
4
8
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
)5217
5($5
/()7
5,*+7
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9(
)52173(563(&7,9(
5($53(563(&7,9(
/()73(563(&7,9(
8'-2"
23'-0"
6'-3"
34'-0"
27'-9"
14'-10"
KITCHEN
13'-4" x 8'-4"
GREAT
ROOM
13'-1" x 14'-1"
BEDROOM
11'-0" x 11'-11"
WH
W/D
BATH
COATS/
STORAGE
PORCH
PANTRY
PATIO
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
0
2
4
8
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
/()7
5,*+7
)5217
5($5
0
2
4
8
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9(
)52173(563(&7,9(
5($53(563(&7,9(
/()73(563(&7,9(
10'-3"
23'-0"
10'-8"
35'-0"
14'-11"
12'-9"
KITCHEN
12'-6" x 10'-1"
GREAT
ROOM
13'-7" x 12'-4"
BEDROOM
10'-10" x 11'-2"
WH
W/D
BATH
COATS/
STORAGE
PORCH
9'-5"
FLEX
9'-4" x 11'-0"
W.I.C.
PATIO
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
0
2
4
8
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
)5217
5($5
/()7
5,*+7
0
2
4
8
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9(
)52173(563(&7,9(
5($53(563(&7,9(
/()73(563(&7,9(
23'-10"
15'-5"
40'-0"
24'-7"
KITCHEN
12'-4" x 10'-1"
GREAT
ROOM
13'-6" x 12'-4"
PRIMARY
BEDROOM
12'-10" x 12'-4"
WH
W/D
PRIMARY
BATH
COATS/
STORAGE
PORCH
SECONDARY
BEDROOM
9'-11" x 10'-0"
W.I.C.
SECNDRY
BATH
PATIO
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
ARISE ARROYO NORTE
PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
0
2
4
8
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
(;+,%,7,
RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 9, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Massimo Sommacampagna, Chair
Steven Scharboneau, Vice Chair
Samantha Keating
Will Holton
Julianna Pierre
Judy Lorch
Loyd Nygaard
Ozzie Virgil
1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna called the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. with a quorum of five members present
(four members required for a quorum).
2. Review and approval of the February 9, 2021 Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting minutes.
MOTION: Loyd Nygaard made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The
motion was seconded by Judy Lorch.
VOTE: 5-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Holton, Lorch, Nygaard,
and Virgil in favor.
3. PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte
Drive. Request for approval of conceptual site plan and elevations by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1; modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan; and technical corrections to Stipulations
3 and 7.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on March 17, 2021.
10 persons in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Samantha Keating provided information regarding the location of the site and
the surrounding zoning. She stated that the site is a portion of the property from
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07. She noted that there were no finalized plans in
2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 170 unit, single-
family rental community with open space areas, gated rear yards, and main
access at the northwest corner. She clarified that the proposed use is permitted
PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1:
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Page 2 of 6
in the C-2 zoning district.
Samantha Keating clarified that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan. She stated that the comprehensive sign plan was
originally intended for the entire area of Rezoning Case No. z-48-07, but the
applicant is requesting the stipulation be modified to exclude the site being
developed for residential uses.
Samantha Keating added that there is a request of technical corrections for
Stipulations 3 and 7 to correct the department names.
David Cisiewski, representing Family Development and FDG Acquisitions,
clarified that the current PHO request was not a rezoning request. He added that
the current zoning permits the proposed use and was only going through the
PHO process to comply with a stipulation and request a modification. He added
that the proposed use in 2007 was primarily commercial retail, but development
never occurred.
David Cisiewski stated that the proposed development consists of 170 detached
residences in a gated community with private backyards and various amenities.
He noted that uncovered, covered, and garage parking is dispersed throughout
the site for both residents and guests. He added that care was taken to provide
buffers from the frontage roads and nearby Interstate-17. He noted that in
addition to a wall along the perimeter of the wall, there is a 40-foot powerline
easement of open desert between the proposed development and the existing
homes to the east. He added that elevations have architectural consistency in
building mass and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. He stated that
the primary finishing materials would be desert materials with natural accents.
Judy Lorch asked what the average square footage of the units would be.
David Cisiewski stated that the unit size would vary from 650 to 900 square
feet, depending on the floor plan.
Ozzie Virgil asked for clarification regarding the orientation of units on the east
side of the proposed development. David Cisiewski clarified that the homes on
the east side of the development would be oriented with their rear yards adjacent
to the powerline easement.
Loyd Nygaard asked about the estimated rent of the units. David Cisiewski
stated that the estimated rent would be between $1,400 to $1,800. Loyd
Nygaard also asked for clarification regarding jurisdiction of the proposed
development and the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision. David Cisiewski stated
that the proposed development is subject to Phoenix jurisdiction and the adjacent
subdivision is part of Maricopa County.
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Page 3 of 6
Will Holton asked about maneuvering through the site, specifically the
southernmost portion of the development. He expressed concern regarding the
ability of emergency vehicles to navigate through the site. David Cisiewski
stated that the north-south roadways throughout the development are 35 feet in
width, except at the southernmost portion where the roadways are 25 feet in
width. He stated that he worked with the City’s Development division to
determine that the development meets the necessary turning radii for emergency
vehicles.
Loyd Nygaard asked if the developer would be able to monitor whether
residents were using county amenities. David Cisiewski stated that there would
be no way monitor those uses, but the intent is for residents to use the
development’s on-site amenities.
Ozzie Virgil asked if a traffic study was done and how the development would
add traffic to the area. David Cisiewski stated that the Street Transportation
Department and Traffic Engineering reviewers did not request a Traffic Study to
be completed. Will Holton asked why a Traffic Study was not required.
Samantha Keating stated that developments have to meet a certain threshold
regarding the number of units and trips to determine whether a Traffic Study is
necessary. She added that this particular development did not meet that
threshold and thus a Traffic Study was not requested. Ozzie Virgil emphasized
that traffic will be an issue and should have been addressed by the City. He
recommended that the developer consider increasing lot size and decreasing
density. David Cisiewski stated that he will continue to work with the Street
Transportation Department regarding traffic concerns.
Loyd Nygarrd asked about fire, police, and utilities. David Cisiewski stated that
he did not receive comments from Phoenix Police and Fire reviewers had no
comments. He added that EPCOR will provide water and sewer to the
development.
Will Holton asked about water flow and flooding. David Cisiewski stated that
there is not a final drainage study, but water does flow north to south and there is
a drainage channel along the western boundary of the development and will be
retained as part of the development.
Andrew Brand, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and congestion. He stated that
having a proposed gated community adjacent to the existing ungated community
will encourage the new residents to use adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision. He
suggested that the developer incorporate fewer rentals and larger park spaces
and remove the gated aspect of the community. He also expressed concerns
about not receiving notifications.
Tyler Estes, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns about increased traffic. He expressed concerns regarding
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Page 4 of 6
density and use of the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision amenities. He also
noted that the developer is not looking out for residents considering EPCOR’s
poor reputation handling water services.
Robert Careway, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding density of the site. He emphasized that the
development is too far north to receive fire and police services from the City of
Phoenix. He stated that those services will have to come from Maricopa County.
Ryan Gregor, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
stated that the development is too dense for the area. He stated that this type of
development will devalue homes. He emphasized that fire services will end up
coming from Maricopa County.
Sean Gates, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic. He added that since the
development does not have adequate park space, they will end up using the
amenities of the adjacent subdivision.
Tod Flaming, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns about increased traffic. He stated that the infrastructure in
the area needs to be expanded to accommodate new development. He added
that the proposed development does not have adequate parking to
accommodate the number of residents.
Chad Cox, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns regarding
increased traffic and the site’s poor parking design. He also stated that he did
not receive notifications and City’s sign was not visible on the property.
Albert Dieva, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he was informed
the only type of development that would be built behind his home was
commercial retail. He expressed concerns about traffic and density.
Terry Mullarkey, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he was the
Executive Director of the Anthem Community Council. He encouraged the City
to communicate with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) regarding traffic. He stated that the design and density of the
community is a concern. He suggested that the developer rethink the proposal
and return to the Village Planning Committee at a later time.
Kiran Patel, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns about
density. He was assured that the area would remain an open, desert-like
community and the proposed use does not complement the existing adjacent
communities.
David Cisiewski emphasized that this is not a rezoning case and the use is
permitted in the zoning district and may have less impact than high intensity
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Page 5 of 6
retail. He noted that the site would not be a traditional single-family development
with a target demographic of millennials and “empty nesters”. He stated that the
development is providing more open space than is required by the Zoning
Ordinance and the individual rear yards for each property should be considered.
He added that the development would be professionally managed with onsite
maintenance and leasing. He also clarified that the development is proposing
more parking than would be required by the Ordinance.
Will Holton stated that the proposed development does not fit the long range
plans for Rio Vista. He stated that developers should want to preserve the desert
look. He expressed concerns about the proposed homes being in such close
proximity. He stated that if a fire started, it would easily spread throughout the
development.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked who maintained the roads adjacent to
the subject site. Samantha Keating clarified that the road directly to the north of
the property was under the City of Phoenix’s jurisdiction and as you move east or
west the roads are under Maricopa County’s jurisdiction.
Ozzie Virgil stated that the developer should be required to complete a Traffic
Study. David Cisiewski stated that he will work with City Staff, MCDOT, and
Arizona Department of Transit regarding traffic issues. Ozzie Virgil also
suggested a continuance to continue working with the neighbors. David
Cisiewski stated that he was amenable to a continuance to resolve traffic issues
and address concerns of the community.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to continue the request to the April 13,
2021 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded
by Judy Lorch.
VOTE: 5-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Holton, Lorch, Nygaard,
and Virgil in favor.
4. Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
5. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
6. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
Will Holton asked staff to look into the new hospital being north of Anthem and
whether it would impact the Rio Vista Village.
MOTION:
VOTE:
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Page 6 of 6
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked staff to provide updates regarding
PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1 and any future community meetings that the applicant
plans to host.
7. Adjournment.
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
(;+,%,7-
RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 13, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Massimo Sommacampagna, Chair
Samantha Keating
Steven Scharboneau, Vice Chair
Julianna Pierre
Will Holton
Judy Lorch
Loyd Nygaard
Ozzie Virgil
1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna called the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. with a quorum of six members present
(four members required for a quorum).
2. Review and approval of the March 9, 2021 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
meeting minutes.
MOTION: Loyd Nygaard made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The
motion was seconded by Steve Scharboneau.
VOTE: 6-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Scharboneau, Holton,
Lorch, Nygaard, and Virgil in favor.
3. PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte
Drive. Request for review and approval of site plan and elevations by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1, modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan, and technical corrections to Stipulations
3 and 7.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on April 21, 2021.
2 persons in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site and the
surrounding zoning. She stated that the site is a portion of the property from
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07. She noted that there were no specific plans in
2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 170-unit, single-
PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1:
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 2 of 12
family rental community with multiple open space areas, gated rear yards, and
main access at the northwest corner.
Julianna Pierre stated that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan, and that there is a request of technical corrections
for Stipulations 3 and 7 to correct the department names.
David Cisiewski, representing Family Development and FDG Acquisitions,
clarified that this case is not a request to change the zoning of the property. He
added that the current request was focused on bringing forward a site plan and
conceptual elevations for review and approval. He reiterated that the proposed
development is a permitted use in the zoning district and complies with the
Ordinance’s development standards. He stated that the proposed development
will consist of 170 detached residences in a gated community with private rear
yards and various amenities.
David Cisiewski stated that after the continuance, a neighborhood meeting was
held on March 31, 2021. He gave a general summary of the community
comments and concerns, including the name of the development, density,
residential design and colors, compatibility, parking, parks and amenities, traffic,
and site access.
David Cisiewski stated that in response to the community, the name of the
development was changed from Arise Arroyo Norte to Arise North Phoenix. He
noted that the provided density of the development is 12.2 dwelling units per
acre, which is much less than the density permitted in C-2. He stated the
proposed development was residential in design with one to two-bedroom units
and the color scheme was revised to a desert color palette, making it more
compatible with the area. He added that the development would have ample
amenities, parking and open space.
David Cisiewski clarified that neither the City nor Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) required the developer to complete a Traffic Impact
Study. He stated that based on the concerns of the community, CivTech, a
consulting firm specializing in traffic engineering and design, was hired to
complete a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). He stated that the TIS concluded that
the proposed development would generate almost 4,000 fewer daily trips than a
commercial shopping center and that the projected traffic volume from the
development would not trigger road widenings or signalization of intersections.
David Cisiewski explained how the revised elevations consist of natural desert
materials which are appropriate for the natural desert context. He explained how
the landscaping, trails, and design allows for discrete, clustered parking areas.
He added that care was taken to provide buffers from the frontage roads and
nearby Interstate-17 (I-17). He added that elevations have architectural
consistency in building mass and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 3 of 12
David Cisiewski also stated that the developer has taken the Rio Vista Design
Guidelines into account. He stated that the development meets specific
guidelines, citing preservation of existing washes, minimum twenty percent open
space and five percent active open space, desert tone colors, more than one
point of ingress and egress, large building setbacks from I-17, and decorative
walls.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification between the community open space
and total open space. David Cisiewski stated that the community open space is
inclusive of the central park, dog park, and other parks interspersed in the
development, which is approximately 7.5% of the site. However, when inclusive
of each unit’s backyard, the total open space accounts for about 50% of the site.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification regarding the two points of access
to the property. David Cisiewski stated that there is the primary access point at
the northwest corner will be for residents and the secondary access point at the
northeast corned will be gated with access for emergency service vehicles.
Steven Scharboneau stated that Stipulation 1 indicated that the architecture
should include natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage. He asked if there was any intention to add brick or stone to the
elevations. David Cisiewski stated that there are tile roofs, tile accents over the
door, and stucco exteriors. He added that brick would be incorporated into the
entry features. He stated that the intention was not to have stone or brick on
each individual unit. Vincent Barbato, owner of Family Development, added
that the elevations have a Mediterranean design with points of articulation, such
as flared treatments, window brows, recessed windows, and recessed accents.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification about the applicant’s request
concerning Stipulation 2, regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
David Cisiewski stated that the comprehensive sign plan was intended for a
larger commercial center with multiple pads and tenants with individual signs. He
stated that the proposed rental community would only have a small sign at the
entrance and a comprehensive sign plan would not be necessary. Steven
Scharboneau asked if there were any sign plans, and if not, could the applicant
provide a description of the intended signage. Vincent Barbato stated that the
main entry would have a professionally designed entry monument sign with the
development name. He clarified that this would be the only seen by the public,
outside of the community. Steven Scharboneau asked about the height of the
entry sign. Vincent Barbato stated that the sign would be built into a six-foot
wall, so it would be less than six feet in height.
Will Holton asked about the drainage on the site. He asked if the water would
drain away from the existing homes. Dave Cisiewski stated that the site would
retain on site water and any water draining away from the site would move north
to south in a southwesterly direction, away from the existing homes.
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 4 of 12
Will Holton asked if the development would have a community mailbox area or
individual mailboxes. Vincent Barbato stated that the mailboxes would be
located in leasing office building, along with a package room.
Ozzie Virgil asked for clarification about utilities. He asked if the units would be
set up in a way where units could be individually sold. David Cisiewski stated
that there would be central water and utility lines that would serve the entire
community, which would not allow for them to be individually metered. Vincent
Barbato added that homes have not been individually platted and would not be
sold individually.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the developer considered decreasing the number of units,
since traffic has been a major concern with the community. David Cisiewski
stated that they originally proposed more units, but eventually decreased the unit
number to 170, which allows for a good combination of density, parking, and
open space. Vincent Barbato stated that the development is proposing much
lower density than is permitted in the C-2 zoning district. He added that their use
will provide the lowest amount of traffic, but the 170 units is necessary for a
viable community. Ozzie Virgil stated that they are trying to focus on providing a
balance in the Village between larger lots and homes with higher density
projects.
Will Holton asked for clarification of a “viable community”. David Cisiewski
explained that the intent was to convey that the 170 units, open space provided,
and dispersed parking will make the development a positive living environment
for the tenants.
Loyd Nygaard asked for clarification regarding the PHO Hearing. David
Cisiewski stated that they filed a written request for a continuance to the April
21, 2021 PHO hearing. Loyd Nygaard stated that he was pleased that the
applicant took the time to address the comments and concerns of the Village
Planning Committee (VPC), but still had concerns about traffic, specifically at the
intersection of Anthem Way and Navigation Way and the intersection of the I-17
frontage road and Arroyo Norte Drive. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, stated that
the proposed development will put out, at the most, approximately 1.5 vehicles
per minute in the peak hours. She stated that there would be no significant
increase in the level of service of delay for existing residents using the I-17
frontage road and Navigation Way. She clarified that this was determined by
looking at trip generation for the proposed development. Ozzie Virgil asked for
clarification about the traffic generation calculation. Dawn Cartier explained that
the calculation was determined by looking at the number of dwelling units and the
Trip Generation Manual produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
She stated that the manual is based on thousands of studies and gives average
anticipated traffic for different uses. She added that the calculation determined
that cars from the development would have a minimal affect on average delay
times. Ozzie Virgil asked if the traffic study was completed on a weekday or
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 5 of 12
weekend. Dawn Cartier stated that the traffic counts were performed on a
weekday during 7-10 AM and 4-6 PM. She added that the numbers were
adjusted upward to account for COVID-19.
Loyd Nygaard asked about northbound traffic and the closest exit onto I-17
when moving in that direction. Dawn Cartier clarified that the closet exit heading
north is two miles away. Loyd Nygaard asked if there was any access to the
east. David Cisiewski stated that the road dead ends to the east where new
development is taking place. Loyd Nygaard stated that he was concerned about
the difficulty for emergency vehicles to reach the area. Dawn Cartier stated that
she spoke with ADOT and traffic would have to be controlled in an emergency
situation with some cars being rerouted.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification about the emergency only ingress
and egress at the northeast corner of the proposed development. David
Cisiewski stated that this is secondary access point specifically for emergency
service vehicles.
Terry Mullarkey, executive director for the Anthem Community Council, stated
that he appreciated the developer’s willingness to modify the development
regarding color of units and add language to marketing materials clarifying that
Anthem is a private community. He stated that he still had concerns about traffic
in the area. He stated that the City of Phoenix needs to be aware of the traffic
burden that they will be placing on adjacent Maricopa County intersections and
roads. He added that a school is being built in the area, which will also increase
traffic.
Terry Mullarkey stated that he has spoken with ADOT and the City of Phoenix
regarding improvements to the frontage roads on the west side of I-17. He
stated that this is not a viable frontage road and needs to be improved if intended
for emergency vehicle use. He added that the frontage road between Desert
Hills and Anthem Way needs to have a third lane added.
Andrew Brand, a resident of the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision, asked for
clarification about the size of each individual unit’s back yard space. David
Cisiewski stated that the average size would be eight to ten feet in depth by the
width of the house, which will vary from thirty to forty feet. Andrew Brand asked
for the location of the closest City funded park. David Cisiewski stated that he
was uncertain of the closest park. Andrew Brand stated that that amenity space
in the proposed development would not be enough to for residents to perform
typical activities done in larger parks. He added that he also had concerns about
safety, traffic, and depreciation in value of adjacent homes.
Andrew Brand stated that the development would create a financial hardship for
adjacent residents. He added that not only would existing residents have to
informally police the community, but also would need to invest money into having
gates installed and roadways improved. He added that there is no reciprocation
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 6 of 12
with a residential development, as there would be with a commercial enterprise.
He stated that the existing residents will gain nothing from this proposed
development.
Andrew Brand stated that he is concerned about the impact that the proposed
development will have on the adjacent community. He stated that they are
disappointed to see such high density. He added that he had concerns about the
layout of the development’s units.
David Cisewski stated that the development would be buffered from the
adjacent community by a 38-foot power line easement and that the layout of units
was dictated by the shape and odd cut outs of the property.
Vincent Barbato stated that the typical clientele will older, responsible
individuals who are renters by choice and do not want to purchase a home. He
added that renters will most likely be looking for a single-family home experience
without the hassle of having to purchase a single-family home. He stated that
the proposed development did not have amenities such as playgrounds or
basketball courts because these were not requested during focus groups and
studies. He stated that a luxury rental community would help increase the value
of adjacent homes because they bring a diverse product to the area.
Steven Scharboneau stated that he appreciated the developer’s willingness to
hear and incorporate community comments, but still had concerns that the
development is not in line with the Rio Vista Village’s Development Guidelines.
He stated that the development, technically, has two points of ingress and
egress, but, functionally, only one since the other is specifically for emergency
service vehicles. He added that the development’s elevations do not show
appropriate accent materials per Stipulation 1.g.i, regarding natural accent
materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings and signage. He added that
the development does not illustrate preservation of the desert landscape. He
stated that he also had concerns regarding traffic and emergency services. He
added that it was also important to take into account the social impact that the
proposed development would have on the existing community.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he was only willing to consider a motion if there was
an addendum stating that the City and Maricopa County would work together for
improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage road
and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit 232,
and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way.
Will Holton agreed with Loyd Nygaard’s statements. He stated that there are
existing traffic problems and the new development would only exasperate those
issues. He stated that the City needs to work with Maricopa County to make it
safer for residents and allow for better emergency service access. He added that
there is not enough space between the proposed units and the development
could easily become a fire hazard.
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 7 of 12
Ozzie Virgil stated this type of development is not what was anticipated for this
area of the Village. He stated that commercial development was expected. He
added that he is not against development, but is more amenable to development
that is comparable to existing single-family subdivisions.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he appreciated that the
developer was responsive to the community. He stated that there are some
difficulties with the Village Guidelines, because they are not enforceable in the
same way a regulatory overlay is enforceable. However, it is important for the
developer to be proactive and work with the Village regarding development. He
added that is important for the Committee to bring ADOT, the City, and Maricopa
County together to address the community’s concerns regarding traffic. He
agreed with Loyd Nygaard and stated that adding an addendum regarding traffic
would be important if the case were to move forward.
Will Holton stated that he was disappointed with the proposed development
because the community’s issues had not been appropriately addressed. He
added that it is important that the Committee be proactive when items have
unresolved issues.
Committee members asked for clarification regarding the recommendation
process. Samantha Keating explained that the Committee is a recommending
body and can choose to recommend approval, denial, or approval with
modifications.
Will Holton stated that it would be beneficial to get feedback from traffic
engineers and emergency services prior to moving forward with the item.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1 with an
additional stipulation requiring that the City and Maricopa County work together
for improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage
road and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit
232, and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way. The
motion was seconded by Judy Lorch.
Samantha Keating clarified that it is difficult to tie a particular development to
larger traffic improvement. She advised that any traffic concerns could be
included as additional direction to City staff.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. He
requested that staff ensure the City and Maricopa County work together for
improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage road
and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit 232,
and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way. The motion
was seconded by Judy Lorch.
MOTION:
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 8 of 12
VOTE: 4-2 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Lorch, Nygaard, and
Virgil in favor and Committee Members Scharboneau and Holton in opposition.
4. PHO-1-21—Z-47-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 775 feet north of the northwest corner of I-17 and Old West Trail.
Request for review and approval of site plan and elevations by the Planning
Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1 and modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on April 21, 2021.
1 person in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site and the
surrounding zoning. She indicated that the original commercial development
proposed in 2007 was intended to provide a buffer between the interstate and
residential development to the west. She noted that there were no specific plans
in 2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 191-unit, gated,
casita-style residential community. She noted that primary access would be from
43rd Avenue and secondary access from the Iinterstate-17 (I-17) frontage road.
She added that the development will provide three main styles for their
elevations.
Julianna Pierre stated that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan.
Brennan Ray, representing NexMetro Communities, stated that the current
zoning permits the proposed multifamily use and that the project was going
through the PHO process to comply with a stipulation and request a modification.
He added that he was aware of community concerns and held a neighborhood
meeting on March 31, 2021 to discuss the project. He added that during the
meeting there were general questions about the development, traffic, and the
intersection of 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way.
Brennan Ray provided a summary about the type of residents that the
community will attract. He stated that most will be older, single residents who
previously lived in a single-family home. He added that, on average, there would
be two children per ten households. He clarified that this information was based
on the almost 2,000 units that NexMetro has constructed in Maricopa County.
Brennan Ray stated that there would be a courtyard layout with one, two, and
three-bedroom units. He added that units would have private, landscaped
backyards. He stated that there would be a total of 191 residences with a central
amenity area, primary access from 43rd Avenue, and secondary access from the
VOTE:
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 9 of 12
I-17 frontage road. He stated that the development would have three
architectural styles, which are all consistent with Stipulation 1, regarding review
and approval of a site plan and elevations. He added that the development has
taken the Rio Vista Design Guidelines into account. He stated that the
development meets specific guidelines, citing desert tone colors, more than one
point of ingress and egress, large building setbacks from I-17, decorative walls,
four-sided architecture, varying rooflines, and multiple floorplans with various
façades. He stated that there are various amenities throughout the development
that are connected by sidewalks. He stated that information will be provided to
residents notifying them that Anthem facilities are private.
Brennan Ray stated that the right-of-way at 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way has
been acquired and improvements are planned to begin in May or June of 2021.
He added that the development will have little to no impact on the level of service
at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way.
Brennan Ray discussed the emergency response times for both police and fire
services. He stated that a mutual aid policy exists between the Maricopa County
Sheriff Office and the Phoenix Police Department and both provide emergency
assistance to each other along the jurisdictional borders. He added that primary
emergency response to fires in the north Phoenix area is provided by the Daisy
Mountain Fire District based on an automatic aid agreement that includes twenty
different fire departments and districts valley wide. He stated that the Phoenix
Fire Department anticipates a new fire station in the 43rd Avenue and Circle
Mountain Road area. He added that the proposed development will generate
approximately $1.5 million in impact fees, some of which will be distributed to fire,
police, and parks.
Judy Lorch stated that the development will have some children. She asked
where the children would be attending school. Brennan Ray stated that there
have been no discussions with the school district, and he was unsure of which
school children would attend. Judy Lorch asked about access via the I-17
frontage road. Brennan Ray stated that northbound travel is permitted from
Anthem Way to Old West Trail and north and southbound travel is permitted
north of Old West Trail.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he was thankful that the developer researched and
attempted to meet the desires of the Village. He added that if he were to vote on
this item, he would require additional direction discussing the need for
improvements for the frontage road west of I-17, the intersection of Anthem Way
and 41st Drive, and Old West Trail. He clarified that all these locations create
tremendous traffic hazards. Brennan Ray stated that the site did go through the
development preapplication process and did not receive any major comments
related to traffic. He reiterated that the City is intending to make improvements to
43rd Avenue beginning in May or June 2021. He added that the proposed
residential use would also generate less traffic than a commercial use.
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 10 of 12
Will Holton asked for clarification regarding the name of the development.
Brennan Ray clarified that the name was Avilla Vista Norte and Avilla was
intended to be short for “a village”.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the property was under escrow. Brennan Ray stated that
NexMetro is in escrow to acquire the property. Ozzie Virgil asked if NexMetro
intended to acquire other properties in the area. He added that the Village was
trying to create a balance between high and low density in the area. Brennan
Ray stated that NexMetro did not intend to purchase other properties or build
similar projects in the area.
Steven Scharboneau asked if both points of ingress and egress would be
accessible to residents at all times. Brennan Ray stated that both entrances
would be gated, but accessible to residents twenty-four hours, seven days a
week.
Terry Mullarkey, executive director for the Anthem Community Council, stated
that Anthem is opposed to the development. He added that he was disappointed
that the multifamily development does not comply with the Rio Vista Village
Design Guidelines. He stated that from experience he knew that the impact fees
would not be seen north of Happy Valley Road. He added that the I-17 frontage
road does not go north or south, but dead ends in both directions. He clarified
that traffic exiting the proposed development would need to exit 43rd Avenue.
He also expressed concerns regarding 43rd Avenue and stated that the planned
improvements would not be adequate. He added that emergency access would
also be an issue unless the I-17 frontage road was improved.
Brennan Ray stated that the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines do not have
specific parameters for hybrid developments that fall between traditional
multifamily and traditional single-family. He stated that the guidelines were
reviewed, and the developer attempted to satisfy those design guidelines to the
best of their ability. He reiterated that this item is a PHO request and that the
development meets the applicable stipulations.
Brennan Ray stated that the City did not ask the developer to contribute to the
widening or improvements at 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way because the funding
was met through a prior case. He added that 43rd Avenue did have an
appropriate level of service, despite perhaps having a few seconds added to wait
times. He stated that in an emergency the I-17 frontage road can allow for two-
way traffic per ADOT mandate. He added that local law enforcement would
control the two-way traffic.
Steven Scharboneau stated that he understands that this is not a rezoning
case, but the density is not what the community wants to see in this area. He
added that it would be important for the Village Planning Committee to create
guidelines for developments that fall between traditional multifamily and
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 11 of 12
traditional single-family. Will Holton agreed with Steven Scharboneau. He
added that the development is too dense.
Ozzie Virgil stated that this type of development is not what was envisioned for
the area. He reiterated that there needs to be a balance of high and low density
in the Village. He stated that the development will exacerbate existing issues in
the area. He clarified that he is not anti-development, but feels any proposed
development needs to be sensible.
Loyd Nygaard stated that while he had issues with the density, he believed that
this was a PHO case and should be voting on whether the proposed
development meets the appropriate stipulations. Chair Massimo
Sommacampagna clarified that this not a rezoning case or a land use issue. He
stated that they should determine whether the elevations and site plan conform
to the listed stipulations. He added that multifamily is permitted in the C-2 zoning
district. Steven Scharboneau stated that their recommendation is based on
community input and that recommendation will be provided to the PHO. Will
Holton stated the Village Planning Committee (VPC) is the voice of the
community and their comments and concerns should be considered.
MOTION: Judy Lorch made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-47-07. The
motion was seconded by Chair Massimo Sommacampagna.
VOTE: 2-4 with Committee Members Sommacampagna and Lorch in favor and
Committee Members Scharboneau, Holton, Nygaard, and Virgil in opposition.
This motion failed.
Will Holton asked for clarity on the semantics of the motion. Steven
Scharboneau asked whether the intent behind the recommendation is forwarded
with the recommendation. Samantha Keating clarified that the recommendation
from the committee would include a summary of the commentary.
Will Holton stated that the motion should include language that requires less
density and input from the City, Maricopa County, and ADOT regarding traffic
issues. Steven Scharboneau and Ozzie Virgil agreed that this was outside the
purview of the Committee. Samantha Keating clarified that the applicant is
proposing review of the site plan and elevations, so the committee can make
additional modifications within that context. Brennan Ray clarified that the
stipulations focus primarily on design. Will Holton stated that the design does
not meet Rio Vista’s Design Guidelines.
MOTION: Steven Scharboneau made a motion to deny PHO-1-21—Z-47-07.
The motion was seconded by Will Holton.
VOTE: 4-2 with Committee Members Scharboneau, Holton, Nygaard, and Virgil
in favor and Committee Members Sommacampagna and Lorch in opposition.
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Page 12 of 12
5. Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
6. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
7. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he felt he had a better understanding of the process
after the second presentation. He stated that he would entertain a venue for
changing his vote on PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. Steven Scharboneau stated that it
would be positive to review information when members were first appointed to
the committee and review the purpose of the VPC. Will Holton asked if there
could be a motion to revote on PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. The Committee members
agreed that the item had been passed and they would not revote.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna suggested that there be an agenda item or
presentation regarding the purpose and intent of the VPC.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked staff for a future agenda item to
discuss community issues with ADOT and Maricopa County to bridge the
disconnect between the community and public entities.
8. Adjournment.
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
(;+,%,7.
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Danielle Jordan, Planner I, Assisting
April 21, 2021
ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT 1
SUBJECT:
Application #:
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Location:
Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage:
16.0
Request:
1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for
approval by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation
1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Applicant:
Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner:
Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
Representative:
Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
ACTIONS
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with a modification and additional stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Rio Vista Village
Planning Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021 meeting and voted
5-0 to continue the request to the April 13, 2021 meeting. The Rio Vista Village
Planning Committee heard this request at their April 13, 2021 meeting and voted
4-2 to recommend approval.
DISCUSSION
Dave Cisiewski, the applicant, gave an overview of the request. He stated that
the request is for approval of a conceptual site plan and elevations for a
multifamily community consisting of detached, standalone, single-story units to
be developed on a portion of the original rezoning area. He stated that the
subject property is located at the southeast corner of the I-17 freeway and Arroyo
Norte Drive and consists of approximately 16 acres located on the eastern
portion of a larger 26-acre lot. He stated that when the property was rezoned to
C-2 in 2007 there was no site plan for the overall development. He stated the
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 2
proposed use is a gated community consisting of 170 detached residences with
private backyards, covered parking, parks, community areas, and walking trails.
He stated that the parking is discreet and located near the residences.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that in addition to the required public notification, and due to
community input he received, a community meeting was held on March 31, 2021.
He stated that the comments from the community meeting revolved around the
name of the development, density, design and colors, compatibility, parking,
parks, amenities, traffic and site access. He stated that in response to community
comments the name of the development was changed from “Arise Arroyo Norte”
to “Arise North Phoenix” to prevent potential confusion regarding the existing
subdivision to the east. He stated that the proposed density of 12.2 dwelling units
per acre is significantly less than what is allowed by right under the existing
approved C-2 zoning. He noted concerns about the design, colors, and
compatibility with the surrounding area, and stated that the units are all single
story and the color scheme had been changed to a more compatible desert color
palette. He noted concerns about parking and stated that the site is providing 275
spaces while only 255 parking space are required and the developer will install
no parking signs along Arroyo Notre Drive, subject to City approval. He noted
concerns about parks and amenities and stated that the site will provide 7.4%
community open space, exceeding the required minimum 5% open space. He
noted concerns regarding traffic and stated that a traffic impact statement was
completed for the project.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that Stipulations 1.a and 1.b regarding elevations are being
met with the revised desert color palette. He stated that Stipulation 1.d regarding
landscaping, arcades, and overhang, and Stipulation 1.e regarding parking areas
are more relevant to the development of a commercial shopping center. He
stated that Stipulation 1.g, regarding consideration of the site design for
residential uses to mitigate impacts of the I-17, is being addressed with an
approximately 500-foot setback from the I-17 frontage road. He stated that
Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan is being addressed with the
building elevations’ inclusion of detailed accents throughout the development.
Adam Stranieri asked whether the resubmitted site plan and elevations were
strictly exhibits for new amenities and colors. Mr. Cisiewski replied yes and that
the site plan date stamped January 28, 2021 is the one that he would like to be
considered in reference to any recommended stipulations.
Sean Gates, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he had concerns
about traffic at the Anthem Way exit on the I-17, ability to access the
neighborhood, and the potential increase in cars from a proposed school site to
the north and from new single-family development to the east. He stated that he
wished that more communication had been done between the City and Maricopa
County.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 3
Lisa Thomas, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that Arroyo Norte
Drive cannot handle any increase in traffic, especially with the new proposed
school to the north of the site. She stated that the project is not a good fit for the
area due to the increased density, safety issues, and fire hazards.
Albert Dieva, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the developer is
unfamiliar with the area and that no parking signs will not be effective. He stated
that he had concerns with lack of parking, open space, and on-site amenities.
Andrew Brand, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that an opposition
petition was created in response to this case which includes over 100 signatures.
He stated that the virtual meeting format is a disservice to the community
members. He stated that he has concerns about the increased traffic along the I-
17 frontage road, the potential fire hazard, and the potential impacts regarding a
proposed school on the north side of Arroyo Norte Drive.
Harmony Brown, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has
concerns about traffic along the I-17 frontage road, the increase in traffic from the
development and the proposed school to the north, the fact that there is only one
road providing access to her subdivision to the east, lack of parking in the
development, and fire hazards.
Richard Zimmerman, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he would
like the stipulation regarding a comprehensive sign plan to be retained in its
original form. He stated that he had concerns about the traffic impact statement
that was conducted by the applicant. He stated that the amount of parking that
the development has is inadequate. He stated that the site and surrounding area
lacks transportation infrastructure and adequate capacity for fire response. He
suggested that a stipulation be added that addresses a dark sky initiative or dark
sky lighting concepts.
Robert Townsend, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns
regarding traffic impacts to surrounding areas and the compatibility of the
proposed density. He stated that the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee did
not follow their own guidelines and standards in making their recommendation for
approval.
Terry Mullarkey, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the site has
unique issues with traffic and is surrounded by properties in Maricopa County
jurisdiction. He expressed concerns regarding the City and County working
together to address traffic issues and stated that they need to look at a greater
area than merely the area around Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 frontage road.
He also had concerns about increased traffic with a proposed school site to the
north. He stated that the density is not compatible with the area.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 4
Tyler Estes, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the development is
not consistent or conforming with developments in the surrounding area and will
create traffic issues along Arroyo Norte Drive. He stated that he is concerned that
the developer is meeting the bare minimum requirements set by the Rio Vista
Design Guidelines and the City. He stated that he also has concerns about fire
hazards.
Dick Gates, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he is concerned
with the increased traffic on Arroyo Norte Drive with the additional traffic created
by the new proposed school to the north and the new single-family development
to the east. He stated that the proposed parking is inadequate.
Jennifer Sylvester, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has
concerns about the potential for increased traffic on Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-
17 Frontage Road stemming from the proposed development as well as from a
new proposed school site to the north.
Angela Cox, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has concerns
about potential fire hazards.
Crystal Hodge, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she shares all of
the concerns regarding traffic issues as raised by previous speakers.
Wyatt Earp, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he agrees with
previous comments from those opposing the case and suggested that any
required traffic studies need to be completed on the weekend to reflect accurate
traffic data. He stated that he has concerns with traffic along the I-17 freeway and
the frontage road not having enough lanes to support the potential increase in
traffic.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that the concerns regarding fire hazards are regarding
natural wildfires that are occurring in the larger area and unfortunately, from the
standpoint of the PHO application, there is not a lot to do for wildfire prevention in
this context. He stated that through the Development Division site plan pre-
application process they received no additional requirements for street
dedications or other conditions regarding submittal of traffic statements or
studies. He noted that the development is not proposed to be a 55 and older
community. He stated that the proposed landscape palette is of a desert
character and the development will have low level lighting. He stated that the
density proposed is less than what is permitted by right in the C-2 zoning district.
Adam Stranieri stated that the original rezoning case included approximately 46
acres and established the C-2 zoning in 2007. He noted that the PHO request
consisted of approximately 16 acres in the southeast portion of the original case
area. He stated that the only public right-of-way adjacent to the site is Arroyo
Norte Drive along the north property line. He noted that the west property line is
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 5
adjacent to a drainage easement and the other property lines are adjacent to
private property and are not adjacent to the I-17 frontage road itself. He stated
that the property across Arroyo Norte Drive to the north, where neighbors noted
that a new school site has been proposed, is in the boundaries of the original
rezoning case, but is not subject to this PHO request. He stated that he cannot
stipulate a requirement for no parking signs along Arroyo Norte Drive, as
suggested by the applicant, as these would be subject to approval from the
Street Transportation Department. He stated that the current PHO request could
not address larger regional or off-site traffic issues and require coordination with
other government agencies regarding these regional or off-site issues. However,
he noted that the Maricopa County Street Transportation Department submitted a
comment on the case and made a request to be included in the review of
relevant plans to allow collaboration with City staff and that this information was
provided to the Street Transportation Department staff as part of this case
review.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1 regarding approval of a conceptual site plan
and elevations was established as there were no plans at the time of the original
rezoning. He also noted that the case originally anticipated that the site would be
developed with a variety of commercial uses. He noted that the proposed site
plan depicts a multifamily residential development which consists of 170 units
with a density of 12 units per acre, which is below the potential density of the
existing R-3 zoning designation. He stated that the proposed open space of 7.4%
represents an approximately 50% increase over the Zoning Ordinance standard.
He stated that the proposed single-story building height is appropriate for the
area.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.a regarding architectural consistency in
elevations was primarily intended to address a commercial center with multiple
users. He stated that Stipulation 1.b regarding primary finishing materials
consisting of a natural desert context has been appropriately met through the
revised elevations, however he stated that he would not recommend stipulating
to these drawings due to the lack of 4-sided perspective and desired features,
which would be relevant to a general conformance review. He noted that the
original submitted building elevations contained 4-sided architecture and
identified architectural features such as window orientation, size, and variation
and varied roof lines. He stated that he would recommend general conformance
to the original elevations, however with an additional stipulation requiring building
and wall colors be muted and blend with the desert environment. He noted that
this stipulation was drawn from a design presumption in the Desert Character
Overly District. He stated that the applicant’s revised color palette would conform
with this design presumption.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 6
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.c regarding drive-through facilities,
Stipulation 1.d regarding landscaping and arcades, and Stipulation 1.e regarding
parking areas were relevant to the original contemplated commercial
developments.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.f required special consideration be given to
site design for residential uses to adequately mitigate impacts of the I-17
freeway. He stated that in terms of site design the property is setback from the
freeway and the impacts are partially mitigated by, and more relevant to, the
adjacent parcel to the west which is adjacent to the I-17 freeway frontage road.
He stated that in addition to the approximately 500-foot setback from the I-17
freeway, no units front the west property line. He stated that in terms of the
submitted landscape plan there are a variety of medium and large canopy trees
that are located along the west property line. He asked Mr. Cisiewski about the
proposed landscaping within the private rear yards along with west property line.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that it would consist of low-level landscaping and, depending
on the lot orientation, a tree to provide shade which would be installed as part of
the initial development.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan was
relevant to the desire to see compatibility between multiple tenants within the
larger commercial development area envisioned in the original case. However,
he stated that in terms of architectural detailing the first submittal elevations
provide pop-outs, window variations and sizes. He noted that if the remainder of
the rezoning area was to develop with commercial uses, the stipulation would
remain for these properties.
Mr. Stranieri stated that there are no concerns with removing the requirement to
comply with Stipulation 2 regarding a comprehensive sign plan as the request
solely involved the one multifamily residential project. However, he
recommended a minor modification to clarify that the comprehensive sign plan
requirement would apply for commercial land uses only.
FINDINGS
1) The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with
commercial uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in
the original application, it was unknown at the time how the site would
ultimately develop, what specific uses would be implemented, and the
scale and intensity of future development. Therefore, Stipulation 1 was
adopted to require Planning Hearing Officer review through the public
hearing process once these became available. However, this stipulation
did recognize that the site may develop with residential uses as permitted
in the approved C-2 zoning designation. Stipulation 1.f directly addressed
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 7
this by establishing criteria for mitigating impacts of the I-17 on potential
residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit
multifamily complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences.
The proposed density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less
than the 17.40 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD
development option with bonus points. The proposed height is less than
the two stories and 30 feet permitted in the R-3 PRD development option.
Proposed open space is approximately 1.18 acres or 7.4% of the gross
site area, which is greater than the minimum 5% required. The proposed
residences are detached stand-alone units rather than a traditional
multifamily apartment complex. The scale and intensity of the proposal is
appropriate for its location along the I-17 freeway corridor, consistent with
the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use map designation, and
creates a buffer between existing single-family development to the east,
adjacent commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway corridor.
2) Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the
review of the site plan and elevations. General conformance to the
proposed conceptual site plan and elevations is recommended as
discussed in these findings.
3) Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations
regarding building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and
signage. This stipulation was originally intended to address the potential
development of the site with multiple commercial uses. With the
conversion of this stipulation to general conformance for the proposed
residential development, these concerns are not wholly relevant.
However, the residential elevations do provide an appropriate level of
consistency while still providing for architectural diversity with three home
styles. Architectural features include multiple window styles, decorative
window treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent colors, and varied
rooflines.
4) Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate
for a desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof
tiles. Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco.
Accent colors are limited to front doors.
5) The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color
palette intended to address concerns raised during public outreach
regarding the compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations
submitted with the request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue,
and red accent doors and a Mediterranean palette. However, the revised
elevations were limited to single-perspective renderings, did not
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 8
incorporate the new door colors on the revised palette, and did not include
the level of detail on the four-sided elevations in the original submittal.
Therefore, an additional stipulation is recommended that addresses the
use of colors that blend with the desert environment, prohibiting reflective
materials, and limiting accent colors. The revised color palette date
stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this stipulation. However, the
stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in reviewing the final palette
as there is no building elevation that depicts all the appropriate colors in a
single image.
6) Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are
addressed in the applicant’s submittal as follows:
e) Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is
located along Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road,
which will allow a continuous perimeter wall along the west property
line. No units front the west property line and there are private yards
located along this area.
f) Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-
17 frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between
the I-17 and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large
parcel, subject to the stipulations of this case, and an approximately
70-foot wide drainage channel.
g) Sound barriers – A 6-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the
west perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does
not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest
unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
h) Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a
variety of large and medium canopy shade trees along the west
property line in open spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow,
oak, and ash. However, the majority of the west property line consists
of private yards and trees are not depicted. The fact that the subject
property does not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road
and the closest unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-
17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced landscaping standards in
this area. The property is subject to existing Ordinance standards for
landscaping in multifamily developments. The remaining parcel
between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this stipulation and
landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for these
plans.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 9
7) Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that
were relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple
commercial users. Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the
considerations are reflected in the conceptual elevations and the
recommendation for general conformance.
8) Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was
relevant to the assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would
develop with multiple commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant
to the development of the site with a single multifamily development. The
applicant’s request to modify this stipulation is recommended to be
approved with a modification to the standard language to specify that this
requirement is only relevant to development proposals for commercial
land uses.
DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a
modification and additional stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
1.
That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site
plan(s) and elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28,
2021, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a.
Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b.
The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
c.
Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 10
not directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d.
Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e.
That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
f.
Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g.
An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i.
Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
ii.
Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii. Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
iv. Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as walls
interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and finished with
materials similar to those of the buildings’ architectural detailing.
2.
That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan
approval for the first phase of development.
3.
That 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of Teresa
Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4.
That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of
the freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 11
5.
That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved
or modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6.
That The applicant shall 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. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary
based on the results of the survey.
7.
That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be
notified by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of
any PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site
plan meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer
hearings:
a.
New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b.
Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c.
Terry Marron
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8.
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 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.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. Please contact the Planning and Development Department, Tamra
Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 or TTY use 7-1-1.
(;+,%,7/
!"#$%$"
& '()*(+!
"$",-.%/%"! (0(1 2 ('(( 2( 3 ( *
*(+2 *4!)( 45!* 5)( **(+!
* (6 ( !$"$%$"7889 *((1 ()
* ('(( (4 ' *5( (4 ' ( *
(( !5)( '(4 ( * : (( ( ( * ((
)4!!' 0 * * '()*(+ ; (( !( (4
1**1 ! ( ** ) ' *!( <5! '
()(4 5!(< *5( *(( * 4 (4 7
"78 *
('(( ( () (+ !'$=%
*( !( !'; ( * 5( () *
(( !1 * *((4 (4 * 5( 4<!(
! ((4 ( * 784 (4 '! *)(( *!! ( *()
*(+ ( >)( 1!!)( *!'<
*5 * *?4! '*( 78 ( ( *@ ( * 5(
('(( 1 ( <;(' * 4?4<!4
< ( ! 5! ! !'1 * *@
( (( 0 0 <!) '!78
*A 1 1 !4 *1 * < ( ! '
( 0)( * !< 7 * ! 0(1 *)
* !! ('(( ( (15( + !
! (4 (4 ' (4 0 < ! 0
( ! * 4! !'(4! !( ; ((4 *!'
< ! 1 *78
4 * ((1(4!0(1 *'*!)
*1 *(4 5 (!7 ! ( (()(4
(4 78
*"$",-.%/%"1(4!5!( * 4 ('((
*54 ( * ! ( * )) * * (78
9 !'5!< * *! (5)( '(4<(!< (( !
* <(! 5( * ** () * 4 (4 (4 *
4! )( *5'(B B!! 78 (!!' * ('((
(4 '!0 *A ! *(4 *( ()*(+ *
(B B!! 4! ) !'1* **(+ (( !5)(
'(4( ( 788
9*< < !(B B!! ( * *<
<1 *! 45 5'& ?4 ( *( 15!<
* * (( !)! ( *( 4! (45 ()) ( (
()1** < 5!)( * * ' (( !!( + ((
!(1 ' !)!'(4 ' 4* (4 789
* *)(!!(1 (C 1 * *(B 4!
D888888 4! ("
?4 * 4 * 4 4 ?4
(!45 0 ( 1!! ( * ) 4 (5!1 * *
4 (4 ! ( * *( *(4 '78
*
(( !< ( (( 5 * ?4 4! ( 78
D888888 4!
D888888& 00 1!!5 <!' *?4 < 11(4!
+ * 1!!5 4 78
D8888889 * ?4 !'4 * (( !78
4 * ( 1?4 5(4 *) () *E4F1 *1 *
* !; ( *9 () * (( !78
* 1 *
C(1 (4 *!') (( * ((4 *5 C' * (4 * * *(
(4 '5)( *(4 ! !! ' ( 4
( * (4 *() *789*< "%4 (
<( *(1 * + () *1 *?4 (7
* <(1!!5
4! G
D888888H4 : ( * ! ' ( !4 * (( !7
8
( *5 ()(4 0(1! & ?4 ( * + (
()1 * < (54 : ( * ! ' 1*<
( (+ * 7
* ;4 )1() *(4 1**1 (4
()(!78& ?4 ( * ( < !( *
1**1 ! !'(4 ()(!!4 (!(
! ( 1 * * 4 (4 *(B
4! (4 4 ! < ( 78< (
< ( !!' * !!' !78 ( ( !4 4 (
* *( 4 ! 4 (4 78 !'( @ *
** ()(4 *( 7
$78) '
6 () * ( '7 <(4 !' ('(( !(
( * () * (( ! * 4 () ('(( <7
89 5! (+ (4 *5( *(((!'( (78
* * ( ''EI"$ *((!1 *(54 <F (;
;4 (4 ( * ) ( 1!! ( * <
(4 () 6 ((4 (78!! 6) ((4 (4 '
5( *() * <!( )4!( ( *) ( (1**
;4 (!* (78
* * * (1'1 *
! ')(4 !' (4 ( ('(( <1 ** ( '
()* * 78
* (1 ! ' (4 7'
(! 61!!)4! ( *: 7
9!: 6;
) * 1 ! (*(+ *(4! ;
* (( ! * 78
* "/) 1'50 4< ' !10
*1 ( * (*(!' < ! ( *( (
(! *! 4! () ( 1!: 7 4! * ) ?4
) 1'!( 4 5' 6( ( * ) ( ( * <
(4 !)! (4 *< () '78 < <
! * *4 < ' * *<
?40!' ! *: * 7 (1!< *)(( *!! 1 *
4?4(1 !(1< ) ( *( *J( * 78
* 1
< 4 !' ( 5 ! ! * ! )(
' 78
( * 1( 1 < '1( * (4 (!' (4 1!!5
*(01 *) 1' 61*1 ( 788! * *<
! ) ()1!: 4 ( 1< 1 *(4 *
' () 4 4 (!!(14 ( )!' 74 * ( *
6; 1!! < ' (!) ( * (4 (4 '
1*1 7
=78 (4 ' (4
('(( '!((0!0 *54 ()(< "%%%%*(
' 4 !0 *( (4 + ! ;4 $=%1' 784
4 ! '+ *( () * ! '64! ((
1 * * 4! !' * '((!1**1(( *<
(784 * ( 1*<4** * () *
*( 1 *(4 * !1 ) 4 4 11(4!
( * *78 *( 1' ((!! )( (4 1 /KL() *
4 1') ( (1 (4 0 (< *!)()(4 54 (
(1 1 (4 7
9 * * (( ! *(4!( 5 (<1 *(4
( (() *! :! 1!!( (
*5( 784 (4 ' ( * (( !
!( * + (4 1 * K%' ) ((4
"%%L < !')4 078 )* ( ' ' 4 *5(
(4 4 ( 0 < ( ( 1 ** * '
!4 1 *(4 !5!!:!5 0 5!!(4 ( !' (4
4?4 (5! * (4 0 1!!54 5' * 78
* (
45!!')4*(+ 0 ( !' (4 '1* * (( !7
) * (( ! !!'( ' ! 4 (45'
"%%L < !')4 0 * ('(( 78& ?4 (
1!!! '5: ) (* *(+1 ( ( *
+( 5 ( ('(( '78
* * 11!!
4)) <!' 45 > * (4 '1 *(4 0 ( !'4) 78
('(( *< 1 * *<!( @ ( '*<
< !(B B!! ( * 7
*<!(
* )4 (0' (() *()) (< *!' :!788
*'
!'* > * 3! 2 ! 050' 78
(1< 11(4!4 '! (!((0!( !' 1* * (( !
!!'()) (5(< * ( ( *( (
*( ('(( *78
4 ' * (( ! (4 !1 * * 7 1!! !!'
)) *1'()!) * * *5( (4 4* ('(
( *<( (+ 1!! ! : *> 1 *(4
?4 (4 (5( * *((1 !0789*
( ) ( * '! ( *(4 ' *
1!! 4!'5 ( *'( *
* ('(( 78
( * ( ! 5(<( * ( !5( * 5(<E 4*
?4 0 ( * ( F1(( * <!(
* ( () 789( *< ' !*> 5
( *4 ()?4 ( () 4 4 *
5'(789! ( * () ) '
( 5! ' '(4 ( ( * 4 7 *(4!
* ( ( (1 * * (; *4 )
( ( )( 1**'(4 (1(( & ?4 ( *(4!
5 4 (<)4 )( (< *4!() * ( (J ('(
( < (7& *(4! * ')( *4 () ('((
0 ( )( ( ( (4 < !')4 1**1!!(15
+( (* * '<!( + (( 78
*0'(4)( '(4 ( (7
!'
() ('(( 7
'!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
* (
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
I 0 0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
* (+
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
1 *
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
*H (
M ,
$%$"%-"#
&!!B!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M(!!'4
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
* ( (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I'!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
&*0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
'4 *
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
( (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N (M *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
( 0!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
M! *0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
>!I!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
* I
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N(! 0!
0 ,
$%$"%-"#
4
*(
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
H 'M *
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
' 5
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
1H
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
!' 0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(! !!*((
1 < ,
$%$"%-"#
( 54 *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
* !
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(5
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
4 *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
N)
(1
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(5
(1
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
! (4 *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
( ))
( !
$%$"%-"#
*!9!!<
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
;(5!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I!(0
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
M*!!&(
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
IH4
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M0(5
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&(!
(1
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
H '(4
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
! (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
!9 !'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M*!!* (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
'@(4 0
< 0,
$%$"%-"#
I H4!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M*!!N(* (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H(5 !! (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
N( 9 !'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N))!5 *
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M*!))
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
' 5
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
?4! 5!!
( !,
$%$"%-"#
(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N!!4?4
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&(4 9'
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
M! H40
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
* '
& !! ,
$%$"%-"#
I !!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
4 1)(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(0( 0
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
(
&<
$%$"%-"#
N(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
>(!*
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
!1!!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
M'M&4))
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I (
H( &
$%$"%-"#
*!'<
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
((0
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
5 (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
!>5 *(1
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
I'! 5
$%$"%-"#
4 (5
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
I!!'N(* (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M *1* (
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
M*! (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H 4
'!(
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
N) ?4(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
9'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(MM4!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
MI'!M&4))
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I &!!5(4 *
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
' (
$%$"%-"#
N(! !(>
!54?4 ?4O
$%$"%-"#
*(!!
( !,
$%$"%-"#
4!!!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
1
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
( 5 (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(5 1'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H ((0!'
)
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N( 4>
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I '(
4 ( 0
$%$"%-"#
<
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
*19* '
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
N (&4 *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
(( &4 *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
(!N(* (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
( (4 *!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I& 0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
4
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H!0H (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&!4!!<
*,
$%$"%-"#
* M( ( '
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M0N(* (
*,
$%$"%-"#
4 *4'
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
( * 0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N4!
( ,
$%$"%-"#
!'M!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&< 4
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I * (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(! 4
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
M0I(
*,
$%$"%-"#
*!5' !' (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&<9*
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
(!!'H' !'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H &<
( !
$%$"%-"#
*(!9*
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
H 5
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
<
0 *
$%$"%-"#
* 41
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H (
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
I M'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&1H!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
&((0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
5 M (B!!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
*(!(
*,
$%$"%-"#
I & *
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
I (!0
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M(!!'(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
N) <(
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
4!'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
4> 0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
(!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H(> *
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
H0' '
< <!!O
$%$"%-"#
*(1 (
!!,
$%$"%-"#
N(*
)
( !,
$%$"%-"#
N 0!
!5 ,
$%$"%-"#
*M
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
M H! 0
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
*4 &1'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
9!!4!!'
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
* H
*,
$%$"%-"#
(
M,
$%$"%-"#
B0
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
!+ M!!
*(+,
$%$"%-"#
* H((
*,
$%$"%-"#
!
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
I< ('
1< ,
$%$"%-"#
I 4
*,
$%$"%-"#
<I 4
*,
$%$"%-"#
& *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
M ' (1
!!,
$%$"%-$%
H (+O
$%$"%-$%
I &(
*,
$%$"%-$%
(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I * &1'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H0'9* '
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
(5 I!!'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
M 'I!!'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
4H !!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
* *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I< (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I H(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N' (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
4
(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
('H (1
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
N ((!*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
!! (I4)
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(5
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
* (5'0 0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H 9 *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H !*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(
(*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
4'M *!!
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
'!( 9((
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
*'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H (4
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(!!'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(5 I4*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H '!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
'I4*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N)
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
'
!! (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
!+ I4*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
!
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
&'!H (
!!,
$%$"%-$%
&(
'!(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
*1H!0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
&<M'
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
*1M4!*'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
!* *!!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
0 *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
<
4
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
!!(
!
$%$"%-$%
N *!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
9 0 0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N 'H'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N('H4 *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
M*!!O(
4!
$%$"%-$%
*!!< (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N4! 6
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H '
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
!*H4 *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
5 (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
1'
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
&
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
II(1! 0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
())H4
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
' 1
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
& 14
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
4 >!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
&(
1<
$%$"%-$%
H H ;
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N 'I(+
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
&(0 !(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(
M ,
$%$"%-$%
4 M 1
!!,
$%$"%-$%
I I (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I
( !
$%$"%-$%
&55N('
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N(
(
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
H
'
$%$"%-$%
9'O!! *
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H (+ (
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
*( 4 (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
*
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
*( 1
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
'!!
H!0 '( '
$%$"%-$%
*!* ()
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N((4
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
H M!!
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
N( *(!!(0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
*!
4
$%$"%-$%
*1MM4!!
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
M*!!!*
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N* 0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
&<
*( (
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
M*!M( ( '
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I'! (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
* '! '
*,
$%$"%-$%
N) !5 * '!
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
N <
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
(5 &!
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
H(55'H!(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I< '
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
*(
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
' (!'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N (!'
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
M(
O
$%$"%-$%
&!! 0 (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
< 0
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
I *!0(
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
N?4!0(1
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
'M (
*(+,
$%$"%-$%
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
H M !(
*,
$%$"%-$%
* ! (
1< ,
$%$"%-$%
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:22 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
For Z-48-07.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Anthem Air <anthemair@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:36 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
If this is passed, what are they planning to do about the traffic ? The weekends are already hard enough to get in and
out of the Arroyo Norte subdivision. Frontage road is always busy and the lighting is horrible at night.
Will there be a stop light put in ?
Will they widen frontage road ?
How will the tenants enter the new complex ?
We pay HOA fees to maintain Arroyo Norte road, will the tenants pay this as well ?
This should not be passed. There is plenty of area on the west side of the 17 to build on.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:13 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Allen <karenallen6012@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:34 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Cc: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us
Subject: Application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Rio Vista Planning Committee,
I am writing today in reference to application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07 Arise Arroyo Norte where the developer has
proposed a high density apartment complex. I currently live in the Arroyo Norte neighborhood, we are a small
community and take pride in the beautiful open surroundings. One of the reasons I recently moved to Arroyo
Norte was due it being a less populated area with plenty of open desert scape. This high density complex will
completely change that. I am asking you to please deny this application.
I have listed my concerns below:
This type of housing would put a huge traffic burden on the frontage road as well as our access in and out of
the neighborhood. There is also a potential safety hazard for emergency vehicle access when traffic backs up
on the frontage road as it normally does.
The development is in no way similar to the surrounding area. 600-900 sq.ft. white apartments with colored
doors does not fit in at all with the desert landscape or the 400k+ homes the development will be in front of.
How can they be considered “luxury” with the size and density they are trying to fit in such a small plot of land?
Concerns with use of Arroyo Norte amenities. Our parks and trails that are privately funded and cannot take on
the additional population that would in fact be using these amenities due to the small “open park areas” they
claim to have. There are no trails, playground equipment, etc., included within their gated community and
Arroyo Norte offers all that in an un-gated community a few steps away.
Concerns this will bring other high density housing to an area that does not call for high density housing.
2
I do feel that the developer and attorney are trying to pull a “fast one” in getting this development pushed
through. Legally as I understand, they were obligated to only send 85 notices due to the zoning. Knowing what
they were proposing, why not try and talk to the community to hear concerns? As you heard last night, many of
us felt unprepared for the meeting with no notice. Most of the neighborhood did not receive any notification of
the development other than a well hidden sign you had to search for, almost like they were trying to deter
residents from seeing it. The attorney claimed he only heard a few concerns prior to the meeting, the reason
being is no one knew about the development.
This whole situation is very disappointing and concerning. Again, I ask that you to please deny this application.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Allen
3737 W. Lapenna Drive
New River, AZ 85087
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Friday, March 12, 2021 8:57 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Application #PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Tara Bowe <tarabowe2017@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:26 AM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>;
tait@ttaitdevelopment.com
Subject: Application #PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Hello,
I’m hoping someone will read this and take consideration. I understand a lot may have already gone into this project, but
I don’t think enough research has been done.
I’ve lived in Anthem since June 2002. When I moved here there were no street lights and it was a cobblestone entry to
the water falls.
The growth has been amazing for many reasons, but there comes a point where it is too much. Traffic on Anthem Way
between Navigation and the Outlet Mall is a nightmare any time of day now. My daughter goes to pre school just on the
west side and I live off the frontage road, on the way to your planned new development. It should be a quick drive to get
her there and back to log on for work, but I get caught up in horrendous traffic both ways. Turning left onto Navigation
from Anthem Way (east bound then North bound) could take several cycles of the light. That problem will only get
worse with more people living that direction. It is one lane each way from Navigation all the way up to New River Road.
Not only is the traffic going to get substantially worse with this development, the overcrowding will affect the parks,
parking in our small town grocery store parking lots and restaurants, and resources. Us East side residents are footed
with a very large EPCOR water bill, while the west side is on Phoenix water. Adding more people to our already bogged
down infrastructure is simply not smart, not safe, and not fair.
Surely, this beautiful development could fit somewhere closer to town. Somewhere along the 303, for example.
Please don’t bring more constitution and congestion to Anthem. It was the most quiet, quaint little town when my
family moved here and we have slowly become overcrowded. Please don’t add to that. For the sake of the dream we
had for our family living here, to raise our children in peace.
2
Tara Bowe
623-363-1274
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Monday, March 8, 2021 1:25 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: Pho-1-21-Z-48-07-1
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From:AndrewBrand<andrewpbrand@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday,March7,20219:18AM
To:SamanthaKeating<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject:PhoͲ1Ͳ21ͲZͲ48Ͳ07Ͳ1
DearMs.Keating,Iama6yearresidentofArroyoNorte,thesmallcommunitylocateddirectlyadjacenttothis
rezoningproposal.IunderstandthereisapublichearingonMarch9at6:00p.m.Thisproposalwillaffectoursmall
communitymorethananyothercommunityinthearea.IwouldliketospeakonTuesdaywithyourapproval.
Evenafterover10yearsinexistence,ourHOAboardisstillunderthecontrolofourdeveloper,TerraWest/Starwood
landventuresuntilthefinal67lotsaresomedaybuiltupon.Unfortunately,thusfartheyhavenottakenanactive
interestinthebettermentorpreservationofthiscommunityanditsstrainedresources.Wehopetheywillshareour
interestsinregardtothezoningproposal,butwedonotyetknowifwecancountonthemdoingso.
Historically,residentssuchasmyselfhavehadtotakeituponourselvestodowhatwecantoinformallyfillthatrole.I
kindlyrequestafewminutestoexpressmyconcernswiththisproject.
Yourstruly,
AndrewBrand
3731WestLapennaDr.
NewRiverAZ85087
SentfrommySprintSamsungGalaxyS8.
April 19, 2021
Dear City of Phoenix Planners,
PHO-1-21-Z-48-07-01, also known as ”Arise Arroyo Norte”, or “Arise North Phoenix,” is
scheduled for a public hearing before the Phoenix planning hearing officer on April 21, 2021.
We, as residents and homeowners of the Arroyo Norte community, and as a neighboring
community to the proposal before you, stand together in firm opposition to the proposed, and
respectfully ask that the City of Phoenix reject said proposal on grounds which we see as critical
to the character, safety, and the long-term viability of our beloved neighborhood and the
surrounding area.
1. Character
Arroyo Norte is an independent HOA, consisting of approximately 230 homes and is located
immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the Arise proposal, with Anthem on our southern
border and undeveloped state land to our north and east. Our community lies in the foothills
north of Phoenix Proper, in an area prized for its wildlife, open spaces, richly diverse habitat,
and high quality homes. Located on Anthem’s northern border, Arroyo Norte was designed to
preserve and enjoy this unique and valued environmental setting, blending seamlessly with
Anthem’s design and commitment to open spaces, dark skies and an active lifestyle.
Anthem's award winning amenities, lush wash preservation, trail systems and open spaces
speak for themselves. Perhaps less known is the fact that as small as Arroyo Norte is in
comparison, we boast an exercise trail encircling our community, spacious parks, a massive
central grass park, and one trail that is particularly popular located adjacent to our richly
vegetated and largest wash. Truth is, no one would know they had left Anthem without being
told. It is a seamless transition and integration of our communities.
The PHO-1-21-Z-48-07-01 would be located right up against Arroyo Norte and Anthem, but it is
something altogether different than either one. We sincerely believe that the Application
before you involves a proposal that violates both the character of the surrounding communities
and the design guidelines set forth by Rio Vista Village. Ironically, the Arroyo Norte
community, like Anthem's East side, although not part of Phoenix, meets the Rio Vista Village
guidelines perfectly, whereas the Phoenix proposal before you, does not.
We have attended several Rio Vista Village committee hearings and have reviewed the plans
submitted by FDG acquisitions, and in short, we believe that the proposal fails to meet those
guidelines on a number of fronts, some of which are inevitable for a high density proposal
located next to a more dispersed low-density single-family community such as ours. We
maintain that the following items are in conflict with the Rio Vista design guidelines:
ࢂ
Stipulation 1Gi: requires that at a minimum the structures are required to include
bricks and stones as well as other features to blend with the surrounding desert
landscaper and other homes in the community. The proposed elevations do not abide
the required stipulations.
ࢂ
Guidelines:
ࢂ
Dark Skies will be negatively impacted and the quiet evenings we would expect in
1
this area will be interrupted.
ࢂ
Wash standards are quite simply unaddressed in this proposal. Furthermore, we
inquired about the fate of the (unnamed) wash within this parcel and adjacent to
the West side of this proposal. This wash flows roughly from North to South, briefly
passing through the Firethorn community before entering the outlet mall drainage
system and continuing into the desert south of Anthem. We have created a 10
minute drone video showing the entire extent of the wash in question. This video
will be supplemented]
ࢂ
Beautification and the trail systems are not included in the proposal. To the best
of our knowledge, FDG acquisitions has expressed no intent in terms of wash
preservation, beautification and the trail systems we have come to expect in this
area.
These are just a few of the outstanding items which we maintain are out of compliance. FDG
Acquisitions has agreed to address several other items which were clearly out of compliance,
including paint color and landscaping inconsistent with the surrounding area and the Rio Vista
design guidelines encouraging a natural desert environment. Even so, Arise is environmentally
and aesthetically sterile. It does not include nature areas or enhance those natural areas
surrounding it. And it certainly doesn’t match the character of our homes.
2. Safety
Traffic is part of this category. As stated previously, Arroyo Norte is located to the east of the
Arise proposal, at the terminus of Arroyo Norte drive. We are able to exit our neighborhood in
only one direction. Arise, and the Anthem Preparatory Academy (K-12 school with no bus
service) project just announced across the street from Arise, will together, add a massive
amount of traffic to our main road. All traffic from our community and both of these
developments get funneled onto the frontage road, which is just one lane in each direction.
This is a high-speed roadway with an already famously dangerous intersection at Arroyo Norte
drive with a history of high-speed accidents. This intersection was already dangerous. Any
additional traffic will add fuel to the fire.
Wildfires and traffic jams: If there was a single reason, Phoenix should reject this proposal, this
is it. The I-17 freeway backs up every single weekend in the warmer months and on holidays,
and several times a month comes to a complete halt as a result of accidents or wildfires. As a
result, these frequent freeway closures bypass traffic onto the same frontage road that serves
as our lifeline and escape route in the event of an emergency. Invasive grasses, climate change,
and increased human activity in the area have quickly escalated the fire threat. In addition, we
live in the foothills with unique downslope wind events from the North/Northeast. These wind
events are surprisingly strong and can be relentless in this area, lasting for days.
In other words, we are very worried that our only escape route will be choked with freeway
traffic when we need it most. Families here have a legitimate fear of a wildfire during a strong
wind event without the necessary road infrastructure to allow us to safely escape. Furthermore,
the traffic jams will prevent emergency personnel from reaching our community when we need
it.
2
3. Community Resources
Arroyo Norte may look like Anthem, but instead of over 10,000 homes paying dues like Anthem
does, our expenses are split just 230 ways. Our dues, already exceed those of Anthem, and it is
already difficult to compete with their amenities, particularly their gym and pool which we do
not have access to. Furthermore, we have a much higher percentage of grass than Anthem
does, and without the reclaimed water infrastructure we would need to match them. In short,
we pay top dollar for our water, 75% of the dues we pay in fact go toward our parks and over
half of our budget goes toward watering our grass.
We maintain that the Arise proposal should not be approved without consideration of the
clear and direct financial impact it will impose on its nearest neighbor. Our community is not
gated and the Arise proposal is located right next to us with its ingress and egress 50 yards from
our 100% privately funded main park. If history is any guide, neighboring communities use
open parks, private or not, and with a high density rental unit without a single ball field,
basketball court or playground, it is unquestionable that our parks will be used by the tenants.
There are no publicly funded Phoenix parks or playgrounds anywhere near this proposal. In fact,
the Arise proposal is essentially on a city Island, surrounded by 100% privately funded parks in
Anthem and Arroyo Norte. FDG acquisitions will already benefit from cheaper Phoenix water
rates compared to the exorbitant Epcor rates Arroyo Norte residents pay. The idea that we will
end up effectively subsidizing this community with our parks, is grossly unfair.
Arroyo Norte residents have met with the developer’s attorney and have attended several Rio
Vista Village committee hearings. The developer has refused to make any good-faith offer to
even the playing field. They repeatedly emphasize their “large” central Park and backyard
grass. However, we would urge city planners to look closely at what this proposal really offers,
comb over the dimensions, and compare those amenities to those in Arroyo Norte and Anthem.
In summary, this proposal is out a line with this area. It will detrimentally effect the way of life
that the neighboring communities, such as Arroyo Norte, have come to expect and will present
an alarming fire hazard without an adequate escape route to both tenants and homeowners
alike. When considering impact fees paid to the city, please consider the community that will
truly be impacted more than any other--That is Arroyo Norte.
For the reasons listed above, and others not elaborated here above (such as inadequate parking
and other concerns), we oppose the Arise development in the strongest of terms. We cannot
accept the very real hazards based on the current state of inadequate transportation
infrastructure in the immediate area and beyond. We appeal to the sense of safety and
responsibility as your committee considers these issues. And should this committee decide to
proceed with this project despite the unsafe conditions for which you are now on notice, FDG
acquisitions should, at a bare minimum provide funding for an overhaul of the Frontage
Road/Arroyo Norte drive intersection. FDG should either pay for the use of Arroyo Norte parks
or for gates to protect our privately funded assets, which will now be exposed to a high density
development next door.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
3
Residents of Arroyo Norte.
4
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Andrew Brand <andrewpbrand@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:13 AM
To:
PDD PHO
Subject:
RE: Speaking request
Attachments:
Photo_6553740_DJI_140_jpg_4690138_0_2021420185552_photo_original.jpg; Photo_
6553741_DJI_141_jpg_4332897_0_202142018564_photo_original.jpg; Photo_6553754
_DJI_154_jpg_4283744_0_202142019630_photo_original.jpg; Photo_6553758_DJI_158
_jpg_4271088_0_202142019742_photo_original.jpg
One last supplement. These are photographs I took last night. Sorry these are coming in the final hours, but I'm just not
sure if the hearing officer is familiar with the area. This shows that we are essentially landlocked. No connections to
anthem.
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
-------- Original message --------
From: PDD PHO <pdd.pho@phoenix.gov>
Date: 4/20/21 11:23 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Andrew Brand <andrewpbrand@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Hello,
I can confirm that I have you registered.
Thank you,
Danielle Jordan,
Planner I
City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division, Zoning Section
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-495-0383
Phoenix.gov/PDD
From: Andrew Brand <andrewpbrand@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:06 AM
To: PDD PHO <pdd.pho@phoenix.gov>
Subject: RE: Speaking request
I registered to speak yesterday morning. Can you let me know if you did not receive it?
2
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
-------- Original message --------
From: PDD PHO <pdd.pho@phoenix.gov>
Date: 4/20/21 8:40 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Andrew Brand <andrewpbrand@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Hello,
Please use the link on the attached agenda to register to speak.
Thank you,
Danielle Jordan,
Planner I
City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division, Zoning Section
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-495-0383
Phoenix.gov/PDD
From: Andrew Brand <andrewpbrand@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:48 AM
To: PDD PHO <pdd.pho@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Speaking request
Good morning Danielle. I wish to speak at the 10:00 a.m. hearing on the 21st. Agenda item number
2 Involving Arroyo Norte.
Thank you.
Andrew Brand
Arroyo Norte resident neighboring this proposal
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Rob Careway <rcareway@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:56 PM
To:
PDD PHO
Subject:
Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Robert Careway, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave
concern to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the
negative impact on our life style are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix
‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there
were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high
density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and
other items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too
many units too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone
bedroom window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open
park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of
Phoenix residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail
which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex
has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on
Arroyo Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo
Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact
the FDG Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the
notification sign between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners
to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition,
David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much
count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we
stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a
2
weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve
Maricopa County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and
increasing the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned
facilities. Add enough parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not
Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please
consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is
home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Careway
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:25 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Rob Careway <rcareway@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:08 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Robert Careway, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the
homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning
committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling
and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities
east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other items we
are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too
close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom window
will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to
illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s,
picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte Dr
which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
2
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between
two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being
not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious
concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no
problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte
drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa
County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing the size
of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter
street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as
we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Careway
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Monday, March 15, 2021 7:46 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Arise arroyo norte aka tiny home “trailer park”
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Chad Cox <coxchad@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:17 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise arroyo norte aka tiny home “trailer park”
To whom ever it may concern, here are a few of my initial thoughts about this development.
170 homes if each home averages 2 cars each due to lack of public transportation, could result in 340 cars. If there are
only 250 or so parking spots this will end up like most rental complexes where tenants will have to park in neighboring
streets. This does not count for oversized vehicles, that will struggle parking and maneuvering in the
proposed neighborhood.
Epcor charges high rates for owners in arroyo norte. This also goes for all of our parks. Our HOA only seeds for summer
time now in order to save money. The parks being proposed in new development are not parks, people can not throw a
foot ball or kick a soccer ball without hitting a house or damaging property. This means people will use what they
perceive as thei arroyo norte park. The added traffic to the arroyo norte parks will increase the financial burden already
being experienced by arroyo norte residents.
weekends, holidays and accidents increase traffic on i-17 resulting in drivers getting off I-17 onto anthem way to
navigation way to gavilan parkway to frontage road to new river road. The four way stop at navigation / gavilan is
already unbearable. 340+ new residents will add to that.
I understand that the houses are rental and the space is classified as retail which means they wont be sold and should
not affect my home comps. However I am concerned about increased crime etc that come with lower income housing. I
am also worried that a poorly themed tiny homes like trailer park will be an eye sore to any one looking to buy a home in
arroyo norte causing the neighbor hood to be “a stable declining neighborhood” ultimately affecting our home values.
I understand that this neighborhood meets “Phoenix laws” , but the proposed neighbor is ridiculous in arizona where
there is so much space to spread out.
2
Thank you
Chad Cox, Arroyo Norte Home Owner
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:23 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Arise North Phoenix
Attachments:
Screenshot_20210404-191703_Maps.jpg
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Tyler Estes <tyler.w.estes@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:45 AM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise North Phoenix
To the Rio Vista Planning Committee,
Thank you for your time and consideration yesterday.
It has been a sleepless night for me as I have processed the words spoken at the meeting yesterday evening.
I am a Millennial, aged 37, and am a high income earning one at that with 4 kids and probably a #5 in the near future. And I feel
like the government and bureaucratic agencies designed to protect my community, my home, my family, and my hard earned
dollars are failing us all.
Were none of you aware that Anthem Prepatory Academy just announced that they are building a K-12 campus directly across
the street from the Arise North Phoenix proposed location? You want to talk about traffic? How is that going to look with Carlines
and school events? You want to talk about Titanic? How is that going to sink when a natural disaster happens and emergency
services are needed? And what will be your moral culpability when you knew already that there were "not enough lifeboats, not
by half"?
So let me understand this....the developer Vincent will not have his community invest in playground equipment for their residents
because they are childless millennials and baby boomers/Gen X'ers that are downsizing, and the developer focus groups told
them they don't want playground equipment? So why then would such a target demographic want to pay 30% higher rent to live
across the street from a SCHOOL? And will this developer also BAN children from living in their community? And if the answer is
"no, we won't ban children" then what does that reveal about the developers character and true intentions? Their "Barely Viable"
community is without a playground because they don't want the expense of it when the Arroyo Norte playground is right across
the street. Ludicrous.
No one has bothered to look at the wash that goes from the Northeast corner of the lot and transverses to the southwwest side,
that's where water from our neighborhood currently overflows to when we have heavy rains. And I see no consideration for that
on the site plans. So when a big rain hits and the storm drain clogs that normally turns Arroyo Norte Park into a small lake and
instead all that water goes towards Arise North Phoenix.....What then?
2
No one has bothered to look at their apartment plans and point out the fact that there is no storage space in these tiny
apartments. No resident has a garage for their cars, toys, and stuff. They barely have closets, and the 1.5 bedroom unit is just a
extra "flex room" with no closet.
This developer knows full well what they are building and their true feelings towards my family, property, community, and quality
of life are absolutely clear. They are directly reaching into my life, and the lives of my neighbors, and extracting their pounds of
flesh to line their pockets with. They are a Judas Goat. They say that they have "luxury apartments" but that is pure marketing
hype. You can also have a "Luxury Wastewater Facility" and it will still smell the same as a non-luxury kind.
What I can assure you is that if the agencies set to protect us continue to fail our neighborhood then we will organize and use
every means available granted to us by our Rights as citizens of the United States and citizens as of Arizona, to let our voices
be heard loud and clear. So that with our Speech we can dissade as many potential clients away from Arise North Phoenix as
possible.
Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Tyler Estes
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:57 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Arise Approval
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Flaming <todd.flaming@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:50 AM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise Approval
Hello,
I am writing to express my disappointment with the way last night’s meeting was handled. I understand that this
job is thankless and hard, and that you are doing your best. But we were done a disservice last night. Several
residents, myself included, were using the previous meeting as a template for this one, and had our hands
raised for comment specifically because we wanted to wait until after hearing about any changes to the Arise
plan (turns our there are none) before responding. In the previous meeting, raised hands were called on, and
this time they were ignored. In my opinion, there was far too much taking the developer’s word for things.
In our previous meeting with David, many concerns were raised and supporting facts presenting, all of which
FDG chose to simply ignore. This type of community will undoubtedly create serious congestion issues in and
around this neighborhood. One only has to look at the nearest similar communities - Elux in Tramonto and
Avanti Deer Valley - to see that this is predictable. Online reviews from residents complain of a number of
things, but even positive reviews mention parking problems. Cars end up parking in fire lanes and blocking
dumpsters, spilling into the street. At Elux, one review states that residents who pay for their spaces are never
able to use their own spaces and are forced to park across the street at Home Depot. At Arroyo Norte, we
don’t have a Home Depot. There is no place for those cars to go except into our neighborhood. David’s
suggestion of putting up no parking signs does not create a solution to the fact that there will be too many cars
- it simply pushes them further into our neighborhood.
David’s response to this was to suggest that we call the police and have cars towed if they park in front of our
houses. So we have to be terrible neighbors and call the cops because FDG wants to maximize their profits
(make no mistake about why they used the word viable).
I tell only this one story to illustrate the dismissive attitude and condescension with which we have been met. It
shows that this entire process is one of sloughing off responsibility to someone else. Arise is fine with people
2
parking in our neighborhood, because it’s not their problem. They are fine with poor access for emergency
vehicles to their own tenants, because they are crossing their fingers that nothing will happen (about two years
ago we had a brush fire that came within 50 feet of my house and a 10 minute delay for DMFD would have
meant lost structures). Phoenix doesn’t care about the burden on county infrastructure because they will get
impact feels and sales tax revenue.
Nothing here is illegal. But it’s not right. Because they have a good lawyer, DFG is allowed to stand on our
neck. They know that people will add wear and tear to our park and that it’s an unenforceable situation. Are we
supposed to card kids at the basketball court? They know that parking will be a problem and they’ve made no
concessions. They’re painting them brown. That’s the only real change they’ve made. They don’t want to be a
part of this neighborhood. They want to extract revenue from this neighborhood.
Who knows? Maybe Vince is right. In which case, he gets money and we get nothing. If he’s wrong, he still
gets money and we get our neighborhood negatively impacted with no recourse. The people with the most to
lose here have been given the least agency. It’s legal, but it’s not right.
The saddest part is that all of this was acknowledged by the committee and then they voted in favor of it
anyway. You said yourselves that this does not fit with the vision of the area; that at best it’s inconvenient, and
at worst it’s unsafe. What about that is worth approving? And how much longer were you going to spend
thanking these guys for having a couple extra zoom meetings and changing the paint color? Do you think that
when a kid crossing the street between parked cars to get to the playground gets run over, we’ll all say “but at
least those apartments are brown?” Shame on you.
Respectfully,
Todd Flaming
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Friday, March 12, 2021 12:51 PM
To:
Adam Stranieri; Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Rina Forbush <rina.forbush@ey.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:37 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>; pdd.sightplanning@phoenix.gov;
PDD Fire Prevention <pdd.fireprevention@phoenix.gov>; PDD Traffic Review <pdd.trafficreview@phoenix.gov>;
tmullarkey@anthemcouncil.com; dfermoile@anthemcouncil.com; mdemichele@anthemcouncil.com;
knorthcutt@anthemcouncil.com; pconley@anthemcouncil.com; sreeths@anthemcouncil.com
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC, Anthem Community Council
From: Richard & Rina Forbush, Arroyo Norte home owners
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing $SSOLFDWLRQ3+2=
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter.
We moved into Arroyo Norte in September, 2020 loving the neighborhood for the space and the quietness it
provides. The price to move in here was much higher than other houses we looked at within the Anthem/North Phoenix
area.
The building of this high density apartment complex is of grave concern to us and the other homeowner’s in Arroyo
Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style is obvious. We truly believe
this type of housing is not in line with the Rio Vista planning committee agenda. We find it troubling and unjust to place
a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
We would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC’s statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too close
together.
2
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone’s bedroom window and
will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to illegally
use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ
pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to the Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt cause traffic issues and lead to parking on
Arroyo Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
)LUHVHUYLFHVZLOOFRPHIURP'DLV\0WEXWWKH\ZLOOQRWSD\LQWRLW
We are starting to get more and more input from property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG Acquisitions has
obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between two bushes and
NOT facing traffic. These facts lead many of the homeowners to believe FDG Acquisitions is not being forthcoming with
such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’.
We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact
we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday.
Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County.
We find it hard to believe that an adequate traffic study was conducted on 3/10/21 – a DAY after the meeting we
had!! Who has the pull to get that done so quickly when we discussed in the meeting that it will probably take weeks to
get that scheduled in these Covid times. Obviously someone knows someone and this report will come back with ‘no
issues’.
In addition, we would like to review the archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
We respectfully request you to PLEASE reconsider such high density housing in this area. We did not relocate from high-
density New Jersey to buy an expensive home to be surrounded by a high density rental complex. Please consider
leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks
amongst other wild animals.
We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard & Rina Forbush
-
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are providing to you. Preliminary
tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for penalty protection.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its primary purpose
is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive advertising and promotional
messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for EY Client Portal and the ey.com website, which track e-mail preferences
through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this message to no-more-mail@ey.com. If you do so,
3
the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our principal postal address is 5 Times Square, New York, NY
10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:32 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: New Arroyo Norte Concerns
Please see below.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: fuqua32001 <fuqua32001@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:28 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: New Arroyo Norte Concerns
To whom it may concern,
This is in regards to the recent application to build multi-housing units on the east side of the I-17 frontage road and
south of Arroyo Norte Dr. It has been brought to my attention that this is an apartment complex consisting of 170
units. That is a rather large density for this location. This will have very adverse effects on the current surrounding
neighborhoods.
To start the traffic increase to the I-17 frontage Road will be tremendous in itself. It is already being debated that the
frontage road is over used and not a safe passage of travel due to the current load placed on it. This will increase this
danger to extreme measures. The frontage road is already subject to multiple accidents from traffic, debris problems,
traffic jams on most weekends, and increased danger to pedestrians including elderly and children.
The next area of concern is the impact on the public safety of this area. Public safety including fire and police
department. That portion of land is City of Phoenix land that would technically be serviced by the City of
Phoenix. However, due to lack of resources and location of fire stations and police stations will have to be serviced by
the mutual aid system, now requiring a further extension of Daisy Mountain Fire Department resources and Maricopa
County Sheriff’s officers. These are all services that this development does not contribute funding to therefore not
2
allowing for them to increase their responders to handle the impact. If per say an incident is happening in the new
multi-housing development and another incident happens in the Anthem or Arroyo Norte neighborhood; the response
time will be well past the expected and needed time to make an impact for life safety.
Another area of concern would be the impact on the private amenities. This includes the parks, playgrounds, hiking
trails, and private roads. The wear and tear of these things is payed for by the residents of the surrounding
neighborhood. It was stated that this new development will not be offering any types of extra amenities. This would
mean the new residents will be using the surrounding residential amenities. This has nothing to do with not wanting to
share, rather what is fair for the maintenance and addition to handle such an increase of individuals using these
amenities. The park at Arroyo Norte already has moments of being extremely full. With an increase of housing at this
scale the park will be overwhelmed.
Then we come to the amount of on street parking. This is always a huge concern when apartments are developed. The
current neighborhoods around this land do not allow for on street parking. Is this something the complex will pay for if
a current neighborhood resident is fined for when it is an apartment resident parking on the street?
Last concern at this time is the impact it will have on the utilities of the area. The current neighborhoods pay American
Water for water which is billed at a higher rate than the City of Phoenix. The neighborhood is at the mercy of American
Water on that price. This development now has to use American Water which is a for profit company. This new
development only pays City of Phoenix rates. Where does American make up the lost revenue. It is not fair for
American Water to lose revenue but it is also not fair to the current residents to have to make that up.
These are all current concerns that the surrounding neighborhoods have and that the city/county should also take into
account.
Thank You
Tre Fuqua
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:
Samantha Keating
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: Comments: PHO-1-21-z-48-07-1
Date:
Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24:10 PM
Danielle,
Please see below correspondence for the above PHO case. I received a few others over
the weekend which I will send over shortly.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Tyler Estes <tyler.w.estes@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 11:05 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Comments: PHO-1-21-z-48-07-1
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a Resident in the Arroyo Norte neighborhood, which is the neighborhood adjacent to
the proposed location for Arise Arroyo Norte (Arise AN) apartment complex.
The rezoning of this land to residential use is of concern to me for the following reasons:
1. Starting in 2021 ADOT will begin the 5 year project to widen I-17 from Anthem Way to Cordes
Junction. To access Arroyo Norte Drive you must either exit I-17 southbound at New River Rd, or exit
at Anthem Way Northbound and go to the eastern side I-17 Frontage Rd/Gavilan Peak Parkway. On
many weekends as traffic on the I-17 becomes congested this congestion overflows onto the
Frontage Rd and Arroyo Norte drive becomes inaccessible. This always causes me great concern
because if Emergency Services are needed their response times will be severely impacted by the
overflow I-17 congestion. This problem is only going to become more acute as Phoenix continues
adding residents and those residents seek to access Northern Arizona via I-17, and as construction
and its inevitable delays occur the inaccessibility of Arroyo Norte Dr will only become worse . Risking
the lives of several hundred Phoenix residents at an apartment complex in such conditions is
irresponsible, and the City of Phoenix could be held liable.
2. Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 Frontage Rd is a dangerous intersection. The Frontage Rd is high
speed, and due to the proximity to I-17, the northbound traffic on the Frontage Rd appears to be the
traffic traveling on I-17 northbound. The speed of this intersection and the poor visibility in day and
night driving conditions has led to numerous serious collisions. I would ask that the Council consider
putting in a provision if it is determined to rezone this space, for the developer to pay for a traffic
circle to be installed at the Arroyo Norte Dr and I-17 Frontage Rd intersection. This will slow down
traffic while maintaining traffic flow, and reduce the number of serious collisions at the intersection,
thus making it a safer intersection for potential Arise AN/CoP residents.
3. Arroyo Norte is in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Our water utility is Epcor Water. At present
the City of Phoenix has no amenities for the residents of Arise AN. Our community has a private park
located just a few hundred feet from the proposed location of Arise Arroyo Norte. There is no
realistic way that the residents of Arroyo Norte will be able to keep the residents of Arise AN from
utilizing our privately paid for facilities. After reviewing the plans of Arise AN they have almost no
green spaces for their residents. They have no park or playground, which is very out of sorts with
other builders in the surrounding area. Even the Bela Rosa Apartments (located at Anthem Way and
Navigation Way) are residents and Anthem HOA members with access to all Anthem HOA amenities.
Bela Rosa Apartments, which were originally built to be high end Condominiums, have playgrounds,
a community center, and green spaces for their residents. So Arise AN is very out of place when
compared to other developers in the area. Because the developer of Arroyo Norte chose to use
fresh drinking water from Epcor for watering the grass at our HOA park and green spaces we as an
HOA have MASSIVE water bills which are straining our HOA. We cannot absorb nor subsidize Phoenix
residents who have no easy access to CoP parks and recreational services and who will use our HOA
park instead. Causing wear and tear and well as damage to our facilities. If the council moves
forward with Arise AN then the developer of Arise AN must provide their residents with amenities
more in line with the surrounding communities. Such as a large community center, Park(s),
playground(s), exercise trails, and pay for the installment of a gate at the entrances to Arroyo Norte
to deter the usage of our private HOA facilities.
4. Arise AN is out of alignment with the surrounding communities. All of the surrounding
communities, whether it be the Anthem HOA, Arroyo Norte HOA, the soon to be built Circle
Mountain Ranch HOA, Tramanto HOA, etc all provide their residents with single family dwellings, and
amenities such as parks, etc. The construction of an apartment complex that is isolated from teh
surrounding communities and does not belong to a community HOA also isolates its own residents,
and alienates homeowners in the surrounding communities as such a facility will negatively affect
their own home values. That is not right. And the only entity that wins in that scenario is the
developer of Arise AN. The developer of Arise AN must seek out the boards of HOA's adjacent to
their proposed development and seek membership for its residents into those HOA's. And build the
apartments according to the guidelines of that community, with full access to their HOA amenities
for the residents of Arise AN since the CoP does not have any facilities nearby.
I thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tyler Estes
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From:BobGallego<bandginqc@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday,March7,20211:08PM
To:SamanthaKeating<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject:RIOVISTAVILLAGEPLANNING
DearSamanthaKeating:
One of the concerns that I have about the building of rental units is the amount of traffic that will be
added to Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 access road. On numerous weekends especially during the
long hot summer months there are traffic jams on I-17. Traffic then increases on the frontage road
which could prevent first responders from getting into Arroyo Norte development if there is an
accident, medical emergency, fire, etc. Just this past week there was a fatal accident just north of the
entrance to Arroyo Norte. A vehicle traveling north on I-17 left the highway and crashed on the
access road. The access road is only two lanes – one heading north and one heading south. Most of
the area between I-17 and the access road between Anthem Way and New River Road only has a
wire fence to prevent wild animals from getting on I-17. The wire fence is useless in the event of
serious traffic accidents Also I-17 narrows from three lanes south of Anthem Way to two lanes
heading north which also causes backups and increases the risk of accidents.
Bob and Gail Gallego
3822 W Abrams Dr
New River, AZ 85087
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Thanks Will and Steve for Having Arroyo Norte's Back!
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Sean Gates <gseangates@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:19 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Thanks Will and Steve for Having Arroyo Norte's Back!
Thank you Will and Steve for Saying NO to a bad project that will have a negative impact on the north valley.
Good Luck Ozzie Finding Your Backbone for the next housing project, hopefully it will be built right next to
your neighborhood.
This is directly from the City of Phoenix's website about what YOUR JOB is as a member of a VPC...
The VPCs provide guidance on a wide range of city-wide and local issues and provide
RECOMMENDATIONS on these items to the Planning Commission.
TRAFFIC is a LOCAL ISSUE for our Arroyo Norte neighborhood!!!!! The right move was to VOTE
NO until ADOT, the city and county came up with a plan to deal with our traffic issues.
You didn't support us and thanks to you, traffic will be WORSE and our property values will decrease!
Sean Gates
Arroyo Norte Home Owner
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:20 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Problems With This Proposal
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Dick Gates <rgates1943@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:18 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Problems With This Proposal
To: Mr. Virgil
Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning
From: Dr. Dick Gates, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
First of all, is this a development that you would approve for your neighborhood next to your community?
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the
homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning
committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling
and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities
east of I17.
Fire protection is a major concern as Phoenix city nearest fire station is a distance away.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other items we
are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too close
together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
Both Anthem and Arroyo Norte were well planned and provide a family atmosphere that reflects community stability
that is sadly lacking in this rental development.
2
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom window will
not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to illegally
use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ
pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte Dr which
is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
1. Parking spaces are very inadequate- most families have two vehicles which if so, equals 340 needed spaces not
counting any visitors parking. This doesn’t take in account box truck deliveries either!
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between
two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being
not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious
concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no
problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte
drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa
County. Why isn’t there an entrance off of frontage road like the extra lane for turning for the Bungalows on Jomax road
off of Frontage Road?
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing the size
of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter
street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as
we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dick Gates
Dr. Dick Gates
3728 W. Abrams Dr.
New River, AZ. 85087
rgates1943@gmail.com
225.573.9149 Cell
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Friday, March 12, 2021 3:32 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Laura Grob <laura.grob@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; lisa@dfgroup.us; Alan Stephenson
<alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Laura Grob, Arroyo Norte homeowner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high-density housing, Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high-density apartment complex is of grave concern
to the homeowners in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our
lifestyle are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the
Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not
materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no
City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and
other items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too
close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area. The outward appearance of the units does
not match the desert scape of the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone’s bedroom
window. These spaces will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to
illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, walking trails etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will no doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte
Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
2
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts lead many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is not being forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County and include the high traffic times.
These apartments would receive service from Daisy Mountain Fire department but would not be paying to
support the fire department which also seems unfair.
In addition, we would like to review the archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this report been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high-density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities or pay to
install a gate on our neighborhood (one was not needed previously). Add enough parking to deter street parking.
Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Drive. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert
space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls, red tail hawks and other wildlife I
see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Grob
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Thursday, April 15, 2021 7:58 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Arise North Phoenix - Rio Vista Planning Committee Case # PHO -1-21-Z-48-07-1
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Laura Grob <laura.grob@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:12 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>; tmullarkey@anthemcouncil.com; Mayor Gallego
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise North Phoenix - Rio Vista Planning Committee Case # PHO -1-21-Z-48-07-1
To:
The Rio Vista Planning Committee
Cc:Kate Gallego, Mayor of Phoenix
Terry Mullarkey, Anthem Executive Director
Thank you for your time and consideration yesterday at the Rio Vista Planning Committee meeting.
I have to say we are all very disappointed in the outcome.
Many of our concerns were not addressed as fully as they were during the first meeting. All of you were basically on our
side with our concerns and then last night most of you did a full 180 and voted for this proposal without further
traffic/fire/police studies. You said yourselves that this does not fit with the vision of the area; that at best it’s
inconvenient, and at worst it’s unsafe. Please explain again how no traffic study was needed but they did it at their own
expense by parking a truck on Arroyo Norte Drive on a Wednesday afternoon to count cars. Then a traffic analyst states
that she used calculations based on a traffic study handbook. Just last Saturday it took me 20 minutes to get off at exit
229 to get to Arroyo Norte. Weekend traffic backup pictures were sent to the committee by one of our homeowners
and obviously ignored as nothing was mentioned about it. Just last year we had a fire behind Daisy Mountain. If we had
to evacuate our area with all the additional residents, how would that work? How would the emergency service vehicles
get into our area? How many homes would be lost? Never mind the fact that if an ambulance needs to get into our
neighborhood on almost any Saturday afternoon in the summer it will be almost impossible and will take even longer
2
with the additional traffic. Thank you to Will and Steven who voted no because they are nearby residents who feel our
pain and understand the traffic and safety issues we will be facing.
So, this leads us all to believe you were either enticed in some manner by the lawyer/developer, or you really don’t care
about our wellbeing. If the second is the case, then we will need to know who to complain to in order to get
remediation or to rectify anything that happens to us or our property within Arroyo Norte. It was even admitted that
emergencies were not considered in their traffic study.
In this meeting, many had their hands raised for comments specifically because we wanted to wait until after hearing
about any changes to the Arise plan (turns out there are none of any major consequence) before responding. In the
previous meeting, raised hands were called on, and this time they were ignored. That seemed deliberate. The developer
got to speak and was, frankly, condescending. We had no chance to rebut.
Were none of you aware that Anthem Preparatory Academy just announced that they are building a K-12 campus
directly across the street from the Arise North Phoenix proposed location? You want to talk about traffic? How is that
going to look with car lines for pickup and drop offs and school events? You want to talk about the Titanic sinking which
is what (I believe) Will had said? How are we NOT going to sink when a natural disaster happens, and emergency
services are needed? And what will be your moral culpability when you knew that you could have prevented the issue?
The developer, Vincent, will not have his community invest in playground equipment for their residents because he is so
sure that they are childless millennials and/or Baby boomers/Gen X'ers that are downsizing. The developer focus groups
told them they don't want playground equipment? So why then would such a target demographic want to pay 30%
higher rent to live across the street from a school? And will this developer also ban children from living in their
community? And if the answer is "no, we won't ban children" then what does that reveal about the developer’s
character and true intentions? Their "Barely Viable" community is without a playground because they don't want the
expense of it when the Arroyo Norte playground is right across the street and Anthem playgrounds are right around the
block.
No one has bothered to look at the wash that goes from the Northeast corner of the lot and transverses to the
southwest side. That is where water from our neighborhood currently overflows to when we have heavy rains. I see no
consideration for that on the site plans. When a big rain hits and the storm drain clogs which turns Arroyo Norte Park
into a small lake, the water will go towards Arise North Phoenix. What then?
There is no doubt that there will be a parking issue with 1.5 cars per unit. For a two bedroom unit, there will definitely
be 2-3 cars! How no one sees this issue is beyond me. Online reviews from residents in similar communities such as
Tramonto and Avilla complain of a number of things, but even positive reviews mention parking problems. Cars end up
parking in fire lanes and blocking dumpsters, spilling into the street. At Elux, one review states that residents who pay
for their spaces are never able to use their own spaces and are forced to park across the street at Home Depot. At
Arroyo Norte, we don’t have a Home Depot. There is no place for those cars to go except into our neighborhood or
along Arroyo Norte. David’s suggestion of putting up no parking signs does not create a solution to the fact that there
will be too many cars - it simply pushes them further into our neighborhood.
David’s response to this was to suggest that we call the police and have cars towed if they park in front of our houses.
So we have to have the burden of calling the police? Is that really how the police should be spending their valuable
time? Issuing parking tickets and towing vehicles? We don’t have that issue now and shouldn’t be forced to have this
issue in the future because not enough parking can be provided.
Arise is fine with people parking in our neighborhood, because it’s not their problem. They are fine with poor access for
emergency vehicles to their own tenants, because they are crossing their fingers that nothing will happen (about two
years ago we had a brush fire that came within 50 feet of Arroyo Norte Houses and a 10 minute delay for DMFD would
have meant lost structures). Phoenix doesn’t care about the burden on county infrastructure because they will get
impact fee and sales tax revenue. The Board asked about impact fees and was told by David he knew nothing about
them.
3
Seems like some of the board members are using this area as a ‘test’ site to see what happens. They stated that they
will not vote affirmatively on the next site if this does not work out and items like safety and traffic are not taken
seriously. Why can’t those items be addressed BEFORE this development is built? We moved into this community in
hopes of having a safe environment for our retirement. Now we have to worry about ‘what if’s’ because a developer
had to line his pockets without doing all the leg work.
Nothing here is illegal. But it’s not right. Just because they have a good lawyer, DFG is allowed to stand on our neck.
They know that people will add wear and tear to our park and that it’s an unenforceable situation. Are we supposed to
card kids at the basketball court? They know that parking will be a problem and they’ve made no concessions. They’re
painting the houses brown to conform with Rio Vista Board recommendations. They also changed the name because
they shouldn’t be taking our name at all. That’s the only real changes they’ve made. They don’t want to be a part of this
neighborhood, but they want to leverage our neighborhood's resources.
What we can assure you is that if the agencies set to protect us continue to fail our neighborhood then we will organize
and use every means available to let our voices be heard loud and clear.
Sincerely,
Laura Grob
Arroyo Norte Homeowner
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Monday, March 15, 2021 7:48 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Arise High Density Housing
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Kelly Johnson <kellyj4916@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:51 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise High Density Housing
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Kelly Johnson, Daniel Rogers, homeowners in Anthem, AZ
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern
to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our
life style are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio
Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not
materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City
of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units
too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom
window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix
residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
2
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo
Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough
parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please
consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well.
Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great
horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kelly Johnson
Daniel Rogers
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Monday, March 15, 2021 1:26 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Arise Arroyo
Please see below.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen <klyons5@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:06 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise Arroyo
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Karen Lyons - Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
I would to first Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. I have lived in the Arroyo Norte community
for 8 years. The high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and
Anthem. The development will have a negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. Based on the call march 9 2021, I don’t believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’
or in line with the Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other
factors that did not materialize. I feel it is troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment
complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. The white exterior does
not lend to desert landscaping. How many white houses do you see in any development in the area?There are
far too many units too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom
window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
2
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix
residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these. Please note the
Artoyo Norte community bears the sole HOA dues which and again are private parks.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will know doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo
Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area and lends to add to the traffic danger.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County. I have experienced 1 plus hour
delays to either leave or return to My home. Also very concerning for police and fire to reach our Homes.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Paint exterior desert color scheme, not white. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from
using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage
road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista.
Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is
home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks we see on a regular basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen Lyons
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Monday, March 15, 2021 7:45 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Arise Complex
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: A G <ag451@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:04 PM
To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Arise Complex
Good evening.
I just wanted to write to you to echo all of the concerns my neighbors discussed in regards to Arise near Arroyo
Norte in New River. We cannot afford for others to use our facilities, it would bankrupt us as families and the
traffic is already awful anytime it’s a busy weekend or an accident happens and to add this much more the way
they have planned is irresponsible. I absolutely oppose this complex in it’s entirety.
Sincerely,
Mandy MacDuff
Sent from my iPhone
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
A G <ag451@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 29, 2021 12:09 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
Arise traffic
Good afternoon,
I wanted to send in a few pics of traffic that we have been saying happens every weekend on the 17 at Arroyo Norte
area. They aren’t great but should show what we mean. This is actually much less than the worst as well and if possible I
will grab more shots. This is just a weekend surge without a wreck or something that makes it much much worse.
Thank you!
2
Mandy
3
4
5
The linked
image cannot
be displayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
renamed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Samantha Keating
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:57 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirsten Myers <kirstenmyers@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:40 AM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
I am writing to express my extreme concern regarding the apartments planned on the corner of the frontage
road and Arroyo Norte, as I live in the community and have for over 5 years.
1. As it stands, on weekends it is already a challenge to enter and exit our community due to the traffic on the
17 and the 100’s of cars that attempt to bypass it by going to New River road.
2. Additionally, the exit from our community is dangerous, especially at night, when the headlights from the
freeway are challenging to discern from those on the frontage road. Even without additional traffic a three way
stop would be a improvement.
3. Our HOA is already lacking in financial resources. Though the apartments are not part of our community, I
can guarantee that they will utilize our parks and trails. This will put an additional burden on our HOA, causing
our dues to increase in order to maintain/replace/water/landscape additional wear and tear/damage to our
facilities.
4. There is not enough parking for that many units. They will, inevitably, end up parking on Arroyo Norte,
causing a dangerous situation for those walking/biking/running.
I request one of the following occur.
1. DENY the application.
2. If that is a non-starter, then reduce the number of units, add additional parking AND add more amenities to
the complex, to limit the amount of people who come to our facilities.
2
3. Develop it in a Senior Living center, as we do have an aging community, the two facilities in Anthem are at
capacity and there is additional need.
I would also like to voice my concern about the fact that my family was never informed about the hearing on
the 9th. We never received a notice in the mail, in spite of the fact that this will directly impact our community,
the value of our home and our access.
Kirsten Myers
623-826-4022
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Julianna Pierre
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Tonight’s meeting
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
City of Phoenix
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
-----Original Message-----
From: Ponsler <ashley.ponsler@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:43 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Tonight’s meeting
Rio Vista Planning Committee,
“I’m going to vote ‘yes’ this time, but not next time” - Ozzie Virgil
Tonight, I listened as this committee stated that while they were concerned about the traffic, acknowledge the
safety implications to the Arroyo Norte Community, and discuss how this “luxury” high density housing unit did
NOT fit into the Rio Vista requirements, then vote to recommend.
Both Ozzie and Massimo made it very clear that this development didn’t fit, yet they would vote ‘yes’ this time
and then reevaluate as a committee so that this doesn’t happen again.
So my question is this, why does it matter next time, but not this time? Why does the safety and quality of life
for the next community matter, but the safety and quality of our community does not?
A response is greatly appreciated.
Ashley Ponsler
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Samantha Keating
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: Rio Vista Arroyo Norte traffic.
Date:
Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:33:24 AM
Attachments:
Traffic 2020 Facebook post.docx
Traffic 5-22-2020.png
Traffic 9-2016.png
Traffic 10-5-2019.png
Traffic 12-1-2019.png
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Anthem Air <anthemair@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:11 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC <riovistavpc@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Rio Vista Arroyo Norte traffic.
I created a folder showing traffic issues in this location, by using Adots Facebook
page. ( word doc)
The traffic filters through Anthem and on to frontage road when I17 is backed up.
The residents will never be able to leave their subdivision.
Notice non of the pictures are on holidays or 3 day weekends.
Thank you,
Raymond
480-225-3546
Anthem Air Conditioning LLC
Arizona Department of Transportation
Sep 19, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: The crash has cleared at Anthem Way, but traffic remains backed up.
UPDATE: There are now extreme delays on I-17 starting in Anthem where a crash is blocking all lanes.
Consider delaying travel or taking an alternate route such as State Route 87 north to State Route 260
west in Payson. SR 260 connects to I-17 in Camp Verde.
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 2, 2020 · Public · …lane remains closed. Continue to expect long delays from Anthem
northward.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 NB closed at New River
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 22, 2020 · Public · …the Valley. Heaviest traffic is in the Anthem area, but with moderate backups
through New River and Black Canyon. Drive safe!
Arizona Department of Transportation
Dec 26, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: Traffic is now flowing normally.
alerts.ping4central.com
Extreme delays on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 23, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: Traffic now flowing.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 backed up 15 miles.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Sep 4, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE 7:45 p.m.: Traffic has eased, but continued to expect some pockets of
moderate-to-heavy traffic.***
alerts.ping4central.com
Expect heavy delays I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Jul 2, 2020 · Public · **6:16 p.m. Thu Jul 2** Except for a couple of pockets of slowing near Black
Canyon City, the severe delays appear to have eased on northbound I-17. We encourage all drivers to
use the free ADOT Alerts app, the AZ 511 app, and www.az511.gov to stay up-to-date on road traffic and
conditions. **4:56 p.m. Thu Jul 2** Delays are easing somewhat on I-17 NB ... but there is still a long
backup from Carefree Highway to New River, and near Black Canyon City as well. Please allow extra time
if you're heading north this weekend.
Expect long delays on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Jun 13, 2020 · Public · …BACKUP on I-17 northbound persists from near Anthem to near Rock Springs
for a non-blocking crash at MP 239.
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 NB delay near Rock Springs
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
May 22, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: These delays have eased. ------------------------------------------------ You can
see for yourself that traffic remains incredibly heavy between Payson and just south of Rye. If you are
planning on heading north, it might be best to put it off for awhile!
Arizona Department of Transportation
Apr 17, 2020 · Public · REMINDER: I-17 in Phoenix will be closed this weekend while crews apply asphalt
sealant to extend the life of the freeway’s pavement. The work will be done along I-17 SB on Saturday
and I-17 NB on Sunday in areas between 19th and Peoria. MORE: bit.ly/2RHJlCW
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
Aug 8, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE 3:23 p.m.: Traffic has eased, but with some continued moderate-to-
heavy delays between Black Canyon City and Sunset Point.*** NOW: Expect delays on Interstate 17
northbound past Black Canyon City.
Arizona Department of Transportation
KĐƚϱ͕ ϮϬϮϬͼWƵďůŝĐͼKD/E'^KKEdK/-17 near you: The new Diverging Diamond Interchange at
Happy Valley Road is scheduled to open to motorists in mid-October. It's a lot easier than you think!
#divergingdiamond bit.ly/36DwTwn
Arizona Department of Transportation
Oct 17, 2020 · Public · ROAD WORK REMINDER: Expect lane restrictions on I-10 between SR 587 and SR
387 for paving. EB and WB I-10 will be intermittently narrowed to 1 lane between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m.,
Sunday through Thursday for 3 weeks. Only one direction will be restricted at a time.
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
May 31, 2020 · Public · 11:19 p.m. All lanes are now open in both directions.
=============================================== 9:34 p.m. The left lane of I-17 northbound is
now OPEN bear Bumble Bee at milepost 248. The right lane remains closed due to the brush fire.
Continue to expect delays. =============================================== 7:26 p.m. I-17
northbound lanes are still closed near Bumble Bee. There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes. The
southbound lanes are open. =============================================== 6:30 p.m.
Northbound I-17 is closed near Bumble Bee; there is no estimated time to reopen the lanes.
=============================================== 6:00 p.m. The northbound lanes of I-17
remain closed due to a brushfire; the SOUTHBOUND lanes are OPEN. (There is no estimated time to
open the northbound lanes.) =============================================== 5:32 p.m.
Northbound I-17 remains closed near Bumble Bee due to a brushfire; the southbound lanes have
reopened. There is no estimated time to open the northbound lanes.
=============================================== 5:08 p.m. The SOUTHBOUND lanes have
reopened; the northbound lanes remain closed, with no estimated time to reopen.
=============================================== 4:31 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) =============================================== 4:02 p.m. Both directions
of I-17 remain closed due to a brushfire. There is no estimated time to reopen the freeway. Drivers are
advised to postpone travel or use alternate routes.
=============================================== 3:30 p.m. I-17 is still closed in both directions
due to a brushfire (SB: MP 262; NB: MP 248). There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes.
=============================================== 3:00 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) =============================================== 2:33 p.m. I-17 remains
closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at milepost 248 (near
Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin Road).
=============================================== 2:00 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) Drivers are encouraged to postpone travel or use alternate routes.
=============================================== 1:33 p.m. Both directions of I-17 remain
closed due to a brushfire. There is no estimated time to reopen the freeway. Drivers are advised to
postpone travel or use alternate routes. =============================================== 12:02
p.m. BOTH directions of I-17 are now closed due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248, near Bumble Bee; the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 259, near Cordes Lakes.
There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes. The on-ramp at Bloody Basin Road will also be closed.
alerts.ping4central.com
Delays on I-17 NB/Bumblee Bee
Arizona Department of Transportation
Aug 15, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: 5:04 p.m. Traffic has eased on I-17 NB***
alerts.ping4central.com
Traffic slow on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Feb 15, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: Traffic has eased on I-17 northbound.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 north backed up 10 miles
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 2, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: 7 p.m. All lanes now open.*** ***UPDATE: Left lane open. Right
lane remains closed.*** ***UPDATE: I-17 NB is now closed at New River.***
Backups on I-17 NB near BCC
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
PDD Zoning
Sent:
Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:34 AM
To:
Samantha Keating; Julianna Pierre
Cc:
Danielle M Jordan; Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov <no-reply@phoenix.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:52 PM
To: PDD Zoning <zoning@phoenix.gov>
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Lisa Salem
Email : Salemlisa46@gmail.com
Comments : This is addressed to Will Hilton and Ozzy Virgil. Thank you sirs for bringing up the traffic issues at Arroyo
Norte. We have major issues with traffic daily not to mention on holiday weekends. Traffic is often diverted from the
highway to the Frontage Road causing major congestion on the Frontage Road. Their has been numerous vehicle
accidents exiting and entering our neighborhood.
Submission ID: 898e5f438366433da263c2cf4a756670
Form Submission On : 3/9/2021 6:52:19 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
PDD Zoning
Sent:
Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:32 AM
To:
Samantha Keating; Julianna Pierre
Cc:
Danielle M Jordan; Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Hello,
Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov <no-reply@phoenix.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:45 AM
To: PDD Zoning <zoning@phoenix.gov>
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Lisa Salem
Email : salemlisa46@yahoo.com
Comments : Good morning, I am a resident of Arroyo Norte Subdivision in New River. 85 residents where notified on
February 22, 2021 of a hearing regarding application PHO-1-21-Z-48-07. This was the first time that any of us had heard
there was a proposed rental community being planned/developed adjacent to our community. Although I do not have
an issue with the development itself, I do have an issue with the traffic pertaining to the development. The issues that
are occurring currently in our area pertain to the I-17 Frontage Rd at Arroyo Norte Dr. Holiday weekends and ongoing
accidents on the I-17 create gridlock on the Frontage Rd causing residents to be trapped in or out of our subdivision. As
well as, during the evening hours it is difficult to distinguish vehicles traveling on the Frontage Rd verses I-17. Adding
potentially upwards of 170 additional vehicles daily due to this development on the I-17 Frontage Rd will only add to the
difficulty of ingress & egress from Arroyo Norte Dr.
The meeting with the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee on March 9, 2021 resulted in the continuance until the April
2021 meeting. Recommendations by the Committee members were that the Developer have better communication
with the residents of Arroyo Norte and explore the traffic study issue. I applauded the Committee for hearing the voices
of the residents during this meeting and encourage the City of Phoenix to hear us as well. Please for the safety of all
parties require a traffic study for this development.
2
Sincerely,
Lisa Salem
928-897-7330
Submission ID: a4986e69b9d34845815b0eec11e31928
Form Submission On : 3/10/2021 9:44:38 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
Schake, Robert - PHX <Robert.Schake@DignityHealth.org>
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:27 PM
To:
PDD PHO
Cc:
rdschake@gmail.com; Careway, Robert - PHX
Subject:
Comments regarding Item #1, case (application) #PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Good afternoon,
As a resident of Arroyo Norte, I am against Item #1, Case #PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1.
I understand these are supposed to be luxury apartments, but based on the location, I cannot believe anyone would pay
a higher price to live along an access road which fronts I17. I understand that my home, itself, would not seem that far
from this same road, but it is far enough into the development, if it matters.
With that being said on about what the true value of these apartments would be, I am concerned about this being rental
property, and bringing clientele that are only renting, versus owning, that close to our very close knit neighborhood.
We are not currently a gated community, so with this proposed apartment complex being at the head of our main street
in and out of our development, I can envision the following things happening if the developer would be allowed to
continue:
x
Parking problems along both sides of Arroyo Norte
o This would cause traffic congestion for those residents, along with all of us that have homes within
Arroyo Norte
o Strong potential for vehicular and pedestrian accidents due to the parking, increased traffic, and those
walking
o Arroyo Norte is the MAIN road in and out of our development. Yes, there is also Circle Mountain Road,
but that is not deemed our main access road, and thus is not maintained in a sufficient manner for this
purpose
x
Apartment residents using our park areas
o Apartment residents would be tempted to use our park areas with no responsibility for cost of
maintaining it, respecting it, or, picking up after themselves
o If their residents make use of our park areas, that takes away availability for us homeowners, who are
paying for it, to use our own areas
x
Safety issues
o The Anthem area already has some crime, in regards to automobile break-ins and such, and general
vandalism
o The addition of these general-housing (again, not luxury) apartments could bring additional safety and
security issues for our neighborhood
x
De-Valuation of our property
o I have great concerns of what such an apartment complex could do to the value of our homes. We have
invested a fair amount into our home, and property, and I am afraid that such development would have
a negative impact on home appraisals.
At the very least, if my opposition, and those of my fellow residents who also oppose, is not enough to stop this
development (but I hope it is), I believe there are a number of stipulations that should be addressed and agreed upon by
the developer before they are allowed to proceed. These are:
2
o Developer responsible for gating of Arroyo Norte’s main access road (Arroyo Norte), as well as Circle Mountain
Road on the north side of our development. The design, products used, and builder for the gates would need to
be approved by Arroyo Norte neighborhood (a committee would need to be established to represent our
neighborhood, to coordinate review and ultimate design approvals)
o Gates are to restrict general access to our neighborhood, but mainly to restrict apartment residents
from using our park areas
o Developer responsible for ensuring NO parking allowed along Arroyo Norte, Circle Mountain Road, or basically
outside of their development plot.
o Perhaps ask developer to be responsible for the widening of the access road from the southern point of their
proposed property line, and north to the Circle Mountain Road entrance.
o Developer responsible for paying for installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Arroyo Norte and the
access road (the main entrance into our development).
Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter.
Bob Schake
3706 W. Teresa Drive
New River, AZ 85087
480-215-1988
rdschake@gmail.com
Caution: This email is both proprietary and confidential, and not intended for transmission to (or receipt by) any
unauthorized person(s). If you believe that you have received this email in error, do not read any attachments. Instead,
kindly reply to the sender stating that you have received the message in error. Then destroy it and any attachments.
Thank you.
1
Danielle M Jordan
From:
LISA THOMAS <k2293@aol.com>
Sent:
Friday, March 12, 2021 4:41 PM
To:
PDD PHO
Subject:
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Re:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive
Danielle Jordan,
I am a homeowner at Arroyo Norte. I’ve been living here in this quiet community since 2015. I am writing to you to advise of
my opposition to this proposal to have 170 very small apartments built so close to my home and my community. These
apartments will cause a great deal of overcrowding, congestion, high volumes of traffic, noise and light pollution, as well as
create a real danger for many of the young children that live in this community.
The proposed apartments would be built entirely too close to our existing community, creating the illusion to the renters that
they are actually a part of this community, but in reality they would not be. Allowing the name of our community Arroyo
Norte to be used by the proposed apartments further creates the illusion that they are a part of this community and they are
not. They will be led to believe they can use our private parks, and private trails, and park their cars and trucks along our
community streets because there will not be enough room for parking their vehicles inside their gated complex of 170 tiny
apartments.
In addition the entry and exit for the proposed apartments is too close to existing homes and entirely too close to the main
park and playground for our children. Why not make the entrance on Frontage Road? That would make it much safer if for
some reason these apartments are approved. It would be much safer for the children and it would lessen the illusion that the
renters are a part of this community. If would also be beneficial if an emergency vehicle had to get into that
apartment complex because of a fire or other hazard. That is just way too many small apartments to be crammed into a very
small area. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. And should there be a fire in those apartments our community would be put at
risk because the proposal is to place them entirely too close to our existing homes.
There was a fire just north of our community back in the summer of 2019. It was on the BLM land just north of Circle
Mountain Drive that borders our community. The day of the fire, residents of this community were not able to get back into
our community from the Frontage Rd coming from Anthem. The road was backed up for miles and for hours and residents
were forced to leave their cars along the Frontage Road and walk home in the hot sun. What if there was another emergency
where someone had to get in to rescue someone at their home for a medical emergency? Residents could not get back to
their homes. Elderly parents were left home alone for hours, people could not get home to their pets. Residents were told to
go hang out at Starbucks until the fire was put out. There was no evacuation but imagine if there was? My point is that with
more people and more cars here Arroyo Norte Drive will not be able to handle the traffic and the congestion.
Weekends are even worse, when people are traveling up North. Travelers think Frontage Rd is a cut thru and a way out of the
bumper to bumper traffic on 1-17. It’s hard enough now to get to the grocery store on a weekend, or to run out to Urgent
Care. Imagine how dangerous it will be with 170 more small apartments with at least that many more cars,
but realistically probably double the amount of cars.
2
Building these apartments would ruin our community in more ways than one and I want you to know that I oppose them
100%. When I moved here, I was told if anything would be built on that lot it would be something commercial, but I was
assured it would not be residential, and no people would be living there.
I hope you consider my concerns and vote against these apartments.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Thomas Arroyo Norte Homeowner
516-527-0317