Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-8-22-1.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
103662 characters
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Date: May 9, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 1, 2023 Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (44.29 acres), C-3 (General Commercial) (11.96 acres), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) (9.06 acres), County RU-43 (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) (Pending Annexation) (8.03 acres) and Pending S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) (5.95 acres) Request To: R-2 (Multifamily Residence District) (29.14 acres), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (31.78 acres), and R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) (18.37 acres) Proposal: Single-family and multifamily residential Location: Northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and the southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC Applicant/Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations General Plan Conformity General Plan Land Use Designation Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (68.93 acres) Commercial (45.65 acres) Proposed: Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre (64.52 acres) Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (31.07 acres) Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (18.99 acres) Remove Infrastructure Phasing Overlay (114.58 acres) ATTACHMENT B Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 2 of 27 I-17 frontage road Minor Collector Width varies +48 feet (MCDOT right-of- way) Street Map Classification Jenny Lin Road Local 0-foot south half street (MCDOT right-of- way) Circle Mountain Road Local 33-foot north half street (MCDOT right-of- way) CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system, development should be designed to include increased amenities for transit, pedestrian and bicyclists such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding. As stipulated, the proposal will provide bicycle infrastructure, including bicycle parking and bicycle repair stations. CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CANALS & TRAILS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Provide multi-use trail connections where appropriate. As stipulated, the proposal will provide a multi-use trail along the western perimeter of the site to provide connection points to adjacent trails and to provide a more comfortable user experience for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the surrounding area. CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that support a broad range of lifestyles. The proposal will provide a mix of housing types and densities that are approximately located along the existing I-17 freeway and nearby the Anthem Employment Center to the south. BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; TREES AND SHADE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix. The proposal will provide shade along public and private sidewalks and trails, in addition to the internal pedestrian pathways. This will help to provide shade for pedestrians and bicyclists in and around the community. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 3 of 27 BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; WATER SUPPLY; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Maximize the use of drought-tolerant vegetation in landscaped areas throughout the city and promote the use of Xeriscape techniques. The proposal will provide drought-tolerant species for landscaping. The landscape species will be selected from the Arizona Department of Water Resources Low-Water- Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List in order to ensure the species is a drought-tolerant low-water-use species. Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines: See Background Item No. 5. National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's Monarch Pledge: See Background Item No. 6. Housing Phoenix Plan: See Background Item No. 7. Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 8. Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 10. Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 11. Transportation Electrification Action Plan: See Background Item No. 12. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning Land Use Zoning On Site Vacant C-2, C-3, S-1, County RU-43 (Pending Annexation) and Pending S-1 North (across Jenny Lin Road) Single-family residential County RU-43 South (across Circle Mountain Road) Recreational vehicle dealership and vacant lots C-2, C-3, and County RU-43 East Vacant (State Trust Land and Daisy Mountain Preserve) N/A West (across I-17) Single-family residential ad vacant land R1-6 and County RU-43 Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 4 of 27 Phase 1 (Project I): R-3 – Multifamily Residence District (Planned Residential Development Option) Standards Requirements Proposed Gross Acreage - 31.78 acres Maximum Number of Units 484 units, up to 553 with bonus 288 units Maximum Density (dwelling units/acre) 15.23 dwelling units per acre, up to 17.40 with bonus 9.06 dwelling units per acre (Met) Maximum Lot Coverage 45% 34% (Met) Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet for first 150 feet; 1-foot increase in height for each additional 5 feet in setback up to 48 feet high, 4-story maximum Not specified Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks Adjacent to public street 20 feet 20 feet – 100 feet (Met) Adjacent to property line 15 feet 15 feet (Met) Minimum Perimeter Landscape Setbacks Adjacent to public street 20 feet Not specified Adjacent to property line 5 feet Not specified Minimum Open Space Minimum 5% of gross area 42% (Met) Minimum Parking 455 spaces 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit; 1.5 spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit; 1.0 spaces per unit of less than 600 square feet If required parking is reserved for residents, additional unreserved parking required at 0.3 spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit and 1.0 space per each 3- or more bedroom unit, except where minimum 18-foot driveways are 541 spaces Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 5 of 27 *Variance or site plan modification required Phase 2 (Project II): R-2 – Multifamily Residence District (Single-Family, Detached Development, Planned Residential Development Option) Standards Requirements Proposed Gross Acreage - 29.14 acres Maximum Number of Units 189 units, up to 349 with bonus 172 units Maximum Density (dwelling units/acre) 6.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 12 with bonus 5.9 dwelling units per acre (Met) Maximum Lot Coverage Primary structure, not including attached shade structures: 40% Total: 50% Not specified Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet (except that 3 stories not exceeding 30 feet are permitted when approved by the design advisor for demonstrating enhanced architecture) Not specified Minimum Lot Width 45 feet minimum (unless approved by either the design advisor or the Single- Family Architectural Appeals Board for demonstrating enhanced architecture that minimizes the impact of the garage (see Section 507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic])) 45 feet (Met) Minimum Lot Depth None, except 110 feet adjacent to freeway or arterial 75 feet (Met) Subject to Single-Family Design Review - Yes Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks Adjacent to street (front, rear or side) 15 feet (in addition to landscape setback) I-17 frontage road: 100 feet (Met) provided for individual units then 0.25 space per each unit required for unreserved parking 1- or 2-bedroom units: 243 units x 1.5 spaces 3-bedroom units: 45 units x 2 spaces Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 6 of 27 Adjacent to property line Rear: 15 feet (1-story), 20 feet (2-story) Not specified Side: 10 feet (1-story), 15 feet (2-story) Not specified Minimum Interior Building Setbacks Front 10 feet Not specified Rear None (established by Building Code) Not specified Street Side 10 feet Not specified Sides None (established by Building Code) Not specified Common Landscaped Setback Adjacent to Perimeter Streets 15 feet average, 10 feet minimum (does not apply to lots fronting onto perimeter streets) 20 feet (Met) Minimum Common Area Minimum 5% of gross area Not specified Minimum Parking 2 spaces per dwelling unit Not specified *Variance or site plan modification required Phase 3 (Project III): R-3A – Multifamily Residence District (Planned Residential Development Option) Standards Requirements Proposed Gross Acreage - 18.37 acres Maximum Number of Units 424 units, up to 485 with bonus Not specified Maximum Density (dwelling units/acre) 23.1 dwelling units per acre, up to 26.4 with bonus Not specified Maximum Lot Coverage 45% Not specified Maximum Building Height 3 stories or 40 feet for first 150 feet; 1- foot increase in height for each additional 5 feet in setback up to 48 feet high, 4-story maximum Not specified Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks Adjacent to public street 20 feet Not specified Adjacent to property line 15 feet Not specified Minimum Perimeter Landscape Setbacks Adjacent to public street 20 feet Not specified Adjacent to property line 5 feet Not specified Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 7 of 27 Minimum Open Space Minimum 5% of gross area Not specified Minimum Parking 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit; 1.5 spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit; 1.0 spaces per unit of less than 600 square feet If required parking is reserved for residents, additional unreserved parking required at 0.3 spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit and 1.0 space per each 3- or more bedroom unit, except where minimum 18-foot driveways are provided for individual units then 0.25 space per each unit required for unreserved parking Not specified *Variance or site plan modification required Background/Issues/Analysis SUBJECT SITE 1. This request is to rezone 79.29 acres located at the northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and the southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road from 44.29 acres of C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), 11.96 acres of C-3 (General Commercial), 9.06 acres of S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), 8.03 acres of County RU-43 (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) pending annexation, and 5.95 acres of Pending S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to 29.14 acres of R-2 (Multifamily Residence District), 31.78 acres of R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and 18.37 acres of R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) to allow single-family and multifamily residential. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION 2. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Commercial and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is inconsistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations. A concurrent minor General Plan Amendment case, GPA-RV-1-22-1, is proposed to change the General Plan Land Use Map designations for a larger 114.58-acre area to Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre, Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre, Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and to remove the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay. The proposed R-2, R-3, and R-3A zoning districts are consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 8 of 27 To the north and east is designated as Undesignated Area located within the County jurisdiction. To the west, across the I-17 freeway, is designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. To the south is designated as Undesignated Area located within the County jurisdiction and Commercial in the City of Phoenix jurisdiction. In between the separate north and south rezoning areas, the land use designation is Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. General Plan Land Use Map Source: Planning and Development Department SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 3. The subject site is currently vacant and is zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), County RU-43 (One Dwelling Unit Per Acre) pending annexation, and Pending S-1 (Pending Ranch or Farm Residence). In between Project II and Project III (see the figure on Page 9) is vacant undeveloped land zoned C-2. To the north (across Jenny Lin Road) is a large single-family residential lot zoned County RU-43. To the south is a recreational vehicle dealer and vacant lots zoned County RU-43, C-2, and C-3. To the east is State Trust Land and the Daisy Mountain Preserve with no zoning designation. To the west (across the I- Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 9 of 27 17) is a single-family residential subdivision zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and vacant land zoned County RU-43. Zoning Sketch Map Source: Planning and Development Department PROPOSAL 4. Overall Site The proposed development will consist of three phases referred to as Project I, Project II and Project III consisting of multifamily residential and single-family residential developments. Due to the location adjacent to the freeway, staff is recommending a series of stipulations to promote high-quality design and mitigation from the traffic noise, including requiring a minimum building setback ranging from 55 to 100 feet and a minimum landscape setback of 30 feet along the west property line (Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3), that noise levels not exceed 45- decibles (Stipulation No. 13), noise mitigation walls adjacent to the west property line adjacent to the I-17 freeway (Stipulation No. 14), that the mix of walls provided on the site shall vary by a minimum of four feet every 400 lineal feet (Stipulation No. 15), that the perimeter walls be constructed with material such as CMU block or a similar material (Stipulation No. 16), and that the developer PHASE 1 (PROJECT I) PHASE 2 (PROJECT II) PHASE 3 (PROJECT III) Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 10 of 27 record documents to disclose to prospective purchasers and renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the I-17 freeway (Stipulation No. 32). Additionally, due to higher vehicular speeds that may occur along the I- 17 frontage road, staff recommends that the developer provide traffic calming measures at all site entries and exits to slow down vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10. Furthermore, to ensure pedestrian safety and visibility, staff recommends that where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway be constructed of alternative material or pavement treatment that visually contrasts with the parking and drive aisle surfaces. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7. To further pedestrian safety, and to provide scenic views, staff recommends that a combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing be incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open space areas, natural and/or improved drainageways and recreational areas. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 20. For consistency between projects, staff recommends that each phase utilize the Planned Residential Development (PRD) option. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1. For enhanced entry design, staff recommends that primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments incorporate alternative decorative paving materials and enhanced landscaping on both ends of the driveway and within a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median within the driveway. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9. Additionally, to ensure perimeter walls throughout the development are compatible and are higher-quality in design, staff recommends the perimeter walls incorporate stone veneer, stonework, or integral color CMU block. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 16. In order to blend with the natural desert, staff recommends that drainage channels be designed to look natural in the desert setting through color, texture, landscaping, or other means. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 21. Further, staff recommends that interior walls and private fencing include colors that blend in with the natural desert environment, as listed in Stipulation No. 17. To enhance compatibility with the surrounding area, which is primarily open space, staff recommends a minimum of 15 percent of the gross area to be retained as open space, including washes and hillside areas, which is triple the minimum required open space. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 18. Phasing Plan The phasing plan, attached as an exhibit, proposes residential development consisting of detached single-family and multifamily housing units to be developed in three phases. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 11 of 27 Phase 1 (Project I) (31.78 acres) is requested to be zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and is proposed to be a multifamily build-to-rent community. Phase 2 (Project 2) (29.14 acres) is requested to be zoned R-2 (Multifamily Residence District) and is proposed to be a single-family detached subdivision. Phase 3 (Project III) (18.37 acres) is requested to be zoned R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) and does not have a current proposed development. Phase 1 (Project I) Site Plan The site plan for Project I, attached as an exhibit, proposes a multifamily build-to- rent community that looks like single-family residences but is subject to multifamily standards. Project I proposes 288 dwelling units. To retain compatibility with the surrounding area and ensure the project does not become any denser and less compatible with the surrounding area, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 39 to limit the maximum density to 288 units. Vehicular access is proposed to be from the I-17 freeway frontage road through a common entry drive with a roundabout at the leasing office and recreation area. A private drive is proposed to circulate throughout the development to provide vehicular access. Parking will be located throughout the site. Refuse bins are proposed to be dispersed evenly throughout the development. There is a recreation area that is centrally located within the development. Two pocket parks are located towards the south and west portion of the site. Additionally, a wash crosses Phase 1 on the southeast corner and is proposed to be preserved. The proposed site plan meets maximum density, minimum perimeter building setbacks, minimum landscape setbacks and maximum lot coverage requirements. As a result, staff recommends general conformance to the site plan date stamped May 4, 2023. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 37. Phase 2 (Project II) Site Plan Project II proposes a detached single-family residential subdivision with 172 lots. To retain compatibility with the surrounding area and ensure the project does not become any denser and less compatible with the surrounding area, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 42 to limit the maximum density to 172 lots. The proposed development would have access from the I-17 freeway frontage road. The subdivision will have one access point with a roundabout from a proposed collector street accessed from the I-17 frontage road. The subdivision is proposed to be gated on both sides of the roundabout. The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, does not depict any vehicular access from Project I. The site plan depicts an amenity area located at the northern portion of the site. The proposed site plan meets maximum density, minimum street perimeter building setbacks, minimum landscape setbacks, minimum lot width and minimum lot Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 12 of 27 depth requirements. As a result, staff recommends general conformance to the site plan date stamped April 13, 2023. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 40. Phase 3 (Project III) Site Plan and Elevations There is no specific development plan for Project III. However, any future development is subject to the approved stipulations for this rezoning case and the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends that the site plan and elevations for future development of Project III shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process. Specific development requirements that will be reviewed by the Planning Hearing Officer include architectural embellishments on all building facades, muted colors to match the surrounding desert environment, and a common architectural theme throughout all developments. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 43. Phase 1 (Project I) Elevations The renderings submitted for Project I propose a Spanish Colonial architectural style. The proposed development will have muted building facades including white, beige, red and brown. The renderings propose one-and two-story building units with several decorative elements, including windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions, corbels, Spanish style terracotta clay gable vent tubes and other architectural embellishments, window treatment, balconies with railing, front covered porches and front courtyards, and decorative lighting fixtures. Staff recommends general conformance to the elevations date stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to these decorative elements. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 38. Phase 2 (Project II) Elevations The elevations and renderings submitted for Project II propose a variety of architectural styles and include plans for one- and two-story buildings with a variety of colors, materials, breaking of massing, window and glass door muntins and mullions, window and door treatments, architectural embellishments, gable end treatment, front covered patios, covered porches, window shutters, and decorative lighting fixtures. Staff recommends general conformance to the elevations date stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to these elements. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 41. PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITATIVES 5. Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee developed the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines to influence the design of new development in the Village. In accordance with the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines, the proposed development, as stipulated, will include a multi-use trail, natural colors and high- quality building materials, a preserved wash, evenly dispersed open space areas, minimum 15 percent open space, a minimum 100-foot building setback from the Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 13 of 27 I-17 for a large portion of the site, fenced front courtyards, enhanced decorative windows, and decorative walls. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2, 12.a, 16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 40, and 41. 6. National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's Monarch Pledge In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers, but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch butterfly population, Stipulation No. 5 addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or other native nectar plant species, on the subject site. 7. Housing Phoenix Plan In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a more sustainable fashion. 8. Tree and Shade Master Plan The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. Staff is recommending the following stipulations designed to provide trees and enhance shade within and adjacent to the development: • All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted with 50 percent 2-inch caliper and 50 percent 3-inch caliper streets (Stipulation No. 4); • Pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75 percent shade (Stipulation No. 6); Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 14 of 27 • Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active recreation amenities (Stipulation No. 19); • Landscape strips between back of curb and detached sidewalks within the development shall be a minimum of five feet wide and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings (Stipulation No. 23); • Landscape strips between back of curb and detached sidewalks for perimeter streets, including along Jenny Lin Road, the I-17 frontage road, and Circle Mountain Road, shall be a minimum five feet wide, or wider to meet Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, planted with minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and that the developer record a landscaping maintenance agreement with MCDOT requiring the landowner and/or property management to maintain the installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of- way (Stipulation No. 24); • Surface parking lot areas for Phase 3 shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees to achieve a minimum of 25 percent shade (Stipulation No. 44). 9. Complete Streets Guidelines In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe pedestrian environment, staff is recommending that enhanced pavement treatment for the on-site pedestrian walkways that cross vehicular drive aisles. Additionally, staff recommends the developer construct minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks with a minimum 5-foot-wide detached landscape strips between the back of curb and sidewalk within the development and that the sidewalks along Jenny Lin Road, the I-17 frontage road, and Circle Mountain Road be minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards, with minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips between the back of curb and sidewalk, or wider to meet MCODT minimum standards. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 23 and 24. 10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long- Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 15 of 27 term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations. As stipulated, the project will provide bicycle infrastructure, including secured bicycle parking spaces, guest bicycle parking spaces, and bicycle repair stations. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 11. 11. Zero Waste PHX The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The applicant’s submittal materials indicated that the community would obtain City solid waste services, including recycling. 12. Transportation Electrification Action Plan In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends a minimum of two percent of the required parking spaces, including garages, include EV Installed infrastructure and five percent EV Capable infrastructure. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 22. COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY 13. As of writing this report, staff has received two letters of opposition and three letters with concerns regarding this proposal. The stated concerns are trail connectivity, inclusion of bike lanes, street width and number of lanes, traffic congestion, safety, density, lack of pedestrian connectivity across the I-17, loss of scenic views and darks skies, and high-density housing adjacent to large-lot single family homes. Staff also received a petition of opposition with 214 signatures. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 16 of 27 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 14. Fire Prevention The Fire Department commented that the development will need to comply with the Phoenix Fire Code, including requirements for water supply for fire flow and for fire hydrants. 15. Water Services Department The City of Phoenix Water Services Department has noted the property will require water and sewer main extensions to serve the proposed development and that the development will be required to develop on-site water and wastewater master plans and conform with the City’s water and wastewater master plan within the Anthem area. The Water Services Department also commented that the water and sewer mains shall be located in an easement and shall follow the easement requirements per WSD’s Design Standards Manual, that the developer will be required to install the infrastructure or pay their proportional share for water production and for a water reclamation plant, including land and easements associated with the infrastructure, that the developer will be required to evaluate and upgrade the lift station and force mains as needed, and that water capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety of factors. As a result of the Water Services Department comments, staff recommends master plans be submitted for the development, per the requirements of the Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 12. 16. Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department recommended that a multi-use path be provided around the perimeter of the site, that public access is maintained to Daisy Mountain from all directions, that trail connections be provided to adjacent trails and that pedestrian connectivity be provided to connect communities. As a result, staff recommends that a multi-use trail be provided along the west side of the property, that a north-south pedestrian connection be provided to connect all phases of the development from Circle Mountain Road to Jenny Lin Road, and that a minimum of four pedestrian connections from the site leading to the adjacent trails directly east or west of the site be provided. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12.a through 12.c. 17. Street Transportation Department The Street Transportation Department requested the following: • That street improvements along Circle Mountain Road, the I-17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road comply with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation standards; • That the developer dedicate a minimum of 65 feet of right-of-way along Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 17 of 27 the east half of the I-17 frontage; • That the developer dedicate a minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way on the southern boundary of Project III for the north half of a minor collector street; • That the developer dedicate a minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way on the northern boundary of Project II for the full width of a minor collector street • That the minor collector street improvements be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip for the north half of the minor collector street on the southern boundary of Project III and minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5- foot-wide landscape strips for the minor collector street on the northern boundary of Project II; • That enhanced pedestrian connections be designed and constructed at all public street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout the entirety of the site; • That all streets be constructed with all required elements and meet ADA standards; • That a Red Border Letter be submitted to the Arizona Department of Transportation. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 25 through 31. 18. Maricopa County Department of Transportation The Maricopa County Department of Transportation commented on minimum right-of-way dedication requirements for Black Canyon Highway, Circle Mountain Road and Jenny Lin Road, responsibilities of the developer, and that the developer notify the Arizona Department of Transportation of the proposed development through the Red Border Letter process due to the proximity to the I- 17 freeway. OTHER 19. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 18 of 27 Findings 1. The proposal will develop a vacant property and as stipulated, will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The stipulated landscape setbacks and planting standards are above the required minimum standards and will make the proposal a compatible addition to the neighboring area. 3. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans and initiatives, such as the Housing Phoenix Plan, the Tree and Shade Master Plan, the Complete Streets Guidelines, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and the Transportation Electrification Action Plan. Stipulations Overall Site 1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential Development (PRD) option. 2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be provided along the west property line, except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 33 through 35. 20. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 36. 21. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm water flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for verification of required infrastructure in regard to lot space and density. 22. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be required. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 19 of 27 minimum building setback of 55 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 3. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 4. All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings with a staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback. b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity. 5. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native nectar species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 6. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown on a shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments, that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 8. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 9. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides within minimum 250-square-foot landscape areas and shall incorporate a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 10. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all site entries and exits to slow down vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 20 of 27 11. Each phase of the development shall provide bicycle infrastructure as described below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for units without garages at a rate of 0.25 spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces. b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per multifamily residential and single-family residential dwelling unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces. Guest bicycle parking for single-family residential shall be located in open space and amenity areas. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the community center and/or clubhouse and open space areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan. c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained on site within an amenity area or near a primary site entrance. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be limited to standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike. 12. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian Circulation Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of the Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be provided and updated with each phase of development to include the following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the west side of the site adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within the easement, in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development department. b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect all phases of the development, including the area between Project II and Project III. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 21 of 27 c. Four pedestrian connections shall be provided from the site leading to the adjacent trails directly east or west of the site. 13. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day night- level (DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. A sealed and signed analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona with a proficiency in residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be included with the building plans submitted for Phoenix Building Construction Code compliance review to the Planning and Development Department. The engineer shall note in the analysis that the building design is capable of achieving the required Noise Level Reduction. 14. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided along the west perimeter of the site. The wall height shall be determined through a noise analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer. The wall shall be constructed of minimum 8- inch-thick concrete masonry units (CMU) or of cast-in-place concrete and contain no openings unless they are above the minimum height required for adequate noise mitigation or for drainage. Noise walls shall be constructed to wrap around corner lots and areas near intersections. Wrap around walls, upon turning a corner, shall continue for at least 120 feet (approximately two lot widths), as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 15. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls shall vary by a minimum of four feet every 400 lineal feet to visually reflect a meandering or staggered setback, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 16. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, shall incorporate stone veneer, stonework, or integral color CMU block, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 17. Interior walls and privacy fencing, excluding walls located between lots, shall use materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 18. A minimum of 15% of each phase shall be retained as open space, including washes and hillside areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 19. Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active recreation amenities, such as a tot lot, picnic areas, seating features, garden amenities, or similar amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 22 of 27 20. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing shall be incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open space areas, natural and/or improved drainageways or recreational areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 21. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 22. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure and 5% of the required parking spaces shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 23. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks and minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk within the development shall be constructed and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings. b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity. Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian environment. 24. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, and minimum 5- foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, or wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards shall be constructed along the south side of Jenny Lin Road, the east side of the I-17 frontage road, and the north side of Circle Mountain Road, planted to the following standards. The developer shall record a landscaping maintenance agreement with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requiring the landowner and/or property management to maintain the installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of-way to the following planting standards, as approved by MCDOT and the Planning and Development Department. a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 23 of 27 b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity. Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian environment. 25. All right-of-way dedications and street improvements for Circle Mountain Road, the I-17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road shall comply with Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requirements, as approved by MCDOT. 26. A minimum 65-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated, and the east half of the I- 17 frontage road shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required and approved by MCDOT. 27. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the north side of the minor collector street along the southern boundary of Project III. The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8- foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 28. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the full width of the minor collector street along the northern boundary of Project II. The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and include minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot- wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 29. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at all public street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout the entirety of the site, as approved by the Street Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department. 30. 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 by the Planning and Development Department and MCDOT (where applicable). All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards. 31. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for this development. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 24 of 27 32. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective purchasers and renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the I- 17 Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation. 33. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval. 34. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations. 35. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology Office to properly assess the materials. 36. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record. Phase 1 (R-3 Zoned Area) 37. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 38. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Spanish Colonial architectural style b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage doors d. Covered front porches Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 25 of 27 e. Window and door treatment f. Decorative doors g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels and terracotta gable vent tubes 39. Phase 1 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 288 dwelling units. Phase 2 (R-2 Zoned Area) 40. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 41. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Variety of architectural styles b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage doors d. Covered front porches and covered rear patios e. Garage, window and door treatment f. Decorative doors g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels, terracotta gable vent tubes, and window shutters h. Gable end treatment with varied materials and colors i. Breaking of massing and with varied materials and colors 42. Phase 2 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 172 lots. Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 26 of 27 Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area) 43. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval with specific regard to the inclusion of the below elements. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department. a. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies. b. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with, rather than contrast, with the surrounding desert environment. Accent colors may be appropriate but used judiciously and with restraint. c. An architectural theme shall convey a sense of continuity through all phases. 44. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter landscape setbacks, shall be landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees and shall be dispersed throughout the parking area to achieve a minimum 25% shade at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Writer Adrian Zambrano and Nayeli Sanchez Luna May 9, 2023 Team Leader Racelle Escolar Exhibits Zoning Sketch Map Aerial Sketch Map Phasing Plan date stamped April 13, 2023 Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan date stamped May 4, 2023 Phase 1 Elevations date stamped August 29, 2022 (12 pages) Phase 1 Renderings date stamped August 29, 2022 (7 pages) Phase 2 Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 13, 2023 Phase 2 Elevations date stamped August 29, 2022 (10 pages) Staff Report: Z-8-22-1 May 9, 2023 Page 27 of 27 Phase 2 Renderings date stamped August 29, 2022 (6 pages) Community Correspondence (13 pages) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Z-104-07 Z-103-07 ANX 401 ANX 401 Z-103-07 Z-67-03 Z-60-04 Z-33-05 Z-90-18 ANX 149 Z-66-96 ANX 401 Z-103-07 ANX 180 Z-103-07 Z-103-07 ANX 402 ANX 485 Z-90-18 ANX 401 Z-32-13 ANX 401 ANX 401 ANX 332 Z-103-07 * * MARICOPA COUNTY * * * * MARICOPA COUNTY * * * * * * MARICOPA COUNTY S-1 C-3 Pending S-1 MARICOPA COUNTY C-2 R1-6 S-1 C-2 C-2 R1-6 C-3 S-1 R1-6 PCD RE-35 PCD C-2 S-1 C-2 MARICOPA COUNTY S-1 SONORAN ARROYO LN 44TH LN 44TH AVE 41ST DR 43RD DR RIVERA DR 43RD AVE 44TH DR CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD §¨¦ 17 DESERT HILLS DR I-17 NE W RIVER RD PY R AMI D P E A K PK W Y RIO VISTA VILLAGE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 I APPLICANT'S NAME: APPLICATION NO. Z-8-22 GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX. 79.29 Acres MULTIPLES PERMITTED * Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus C-2, C-3, S-1, RU-43 (County), Pending S-1 R-2, R-3, R-3A CONVENTIONAL OPTION 642, 173, 9, 8, 5 291, 461, 404 * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION 770, 208, N/A, N/A, N/A 349, 553, 485 Withey Morris PLC / Adam Baugh DATE: 3/15/2022 REVISION DATES: AERIAL PHOTO & QUARTER SEC. NO. QS 72-19 ZONING MAP V-6 REQUESTED CHANGE: FROM: C-2 ( 44.29 a.c.) C-3 ( 11.96 a.c.) S-1 ( 9.06 a.c.) RU-43 (County) ( 8.03 a.c.) Pending S-1 ( 5.95 a.c.) TO: R-2 ( 29.14 a.c.) R-3 ( 31.78 a.c.) R-3A ( 18.37 a.c.) Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-8-22.mxd Z-8-22 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 Miles 1/18/2023 4/20/2023 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Z-104-07 Z-103-07 ANX 401 ANX 401 Z-103-07 Z-67-03 Z-60-04 Z-33-05 Z-90-18 ANX 149 Z-66-96 ANX 401 Z-103-07 ANX 180 Z-103-07 Z-103-07 ANX 402 ANX 485 Z-90-18 ANX 401 Z-32-13 ANX 401 ANX 401 ANX 332 Z-103-07 * * MARICOPA COUNTY * * * * MARICOPA COUNTY * * * * * * MARICOPA COUNTY S-1 C-3 Pending S-1 MARICOPA COUNTY C-2 R1-6 S-1 C-2 C-2 R1-6 C-3 S-1 R1-6 PCD RE-35 PCD C-2 S-1 C-2 MARICOPA COUNTY S-1 SONORAN ARROYO LN 44TH LN 44TH AVE 41ST DR 43RD DR RIVERA DR 43RD AVE 44TH DR CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD §¨¦ 17 Maricopa County Assessor's Office DESERT HILLS DR I-17 NE W RIVER RD PY R AMI D P E A K PK W Y RIO VISTA VILLAGE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 I APPLICANT'S NAME: APPLICATION NO. Z-8-22 GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX. 79.29 Acres MULTIPLES PERMITTED * Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus C-2, C-3, S-1, RU-43 (County), Pending S-1 R-2, R-3, R-3A CONVENTIONAL OPTION 642, 173, 9, 8, 5 291, 461, 404 * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION 770, 208, N/A, N/A, N/A 349, 553, 485 Withey Morris PLC / Adam Baugh DATE: 3/15/2022 REVISION DATES: AERIAL PHOTO & QUARTER SEC. NO. QS 72-19 ZONING MAP V-6 REQUESTED CHANGE: FROM: C-2 ( 44.29 a.c.) C-3 ( 11.96 a.c.) S-1 ( 9.06 a.c.) RU-43 (County) ( 8.03 a.c.) Pending S-1 ( 5.95 a.c.) TO: R-2 ( 29.14 a.c.) R-3 ( 31.78 a.c.) R-3A ( 18.37 a.c.) Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-8-22.mxd Z-8-22 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 Miles 1/18/2023 4/20/2023 PROJECT 1I PROJECT I PROJECT 11I "NOT A PART FUTURE DEVELOPMENT" 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 16 18 19 23 20 21 22 24 25 28 27 26 29 33 30 32 35 31 34 36 37 38 39 43 40 41 42 44 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 14.8' 47 48 52 74 107 105 113 114 121 108 106 109 123 110 112 111 116 115 117 134 119 127 129 151 136 137 139 46 45 154 49 54 50 51 56 53 57 55 58 163 164 59 168 61 66 64 62 63 170 68 65 172 67 70 69 73 71 75 76 118 131 141 120 135 146 126 122 130 128 125 124 144 143 152 140 138 132 133 147 158 142 145 153 160 148 150 155 157 169 149 156 165 159 161 162 167 171 166 60 72 PLAN 3G PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD I-17 FRONTAGE ROAD PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 2C PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2C PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 1C PLAN 3G PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 3G PLAN 3G PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 1 PLAN 1C PLAN 3G PLAN 3G PLAN 2 PLAN 2 31.06 ACRES 288 Total Units 9.3 DU/AC 28.5 ACRES 172 Total Units 6.03 DU/AC 19.3 ACRES SHEET JOB NO Project Boundary Exhibit OF 1 1 20-1099 Anthem 114 200 0 200 400 scale 1" = 200' feet PROJECT I: R-3 PRD PROJECT II: R-2 PRD PROJECT III: R-3A PROPOSED ZONING N0°08'44"W 1240.24' N89°45'10"W 1074.15' N89°58'18"W 2645.50' 1551.65' 1093.85' N89°42'29"E 2638.54' APN 202-22-015A MIA HOLDINGS ZONING: C-3 APN 202-22-015C MIA HOLDINGS ZONING: C-2 APN 202-22-015D KENNETH SHEEHAN TR ZONING: RU-43 APN 202-22-015E KENNETH SHEEHAN TR ZONING: RU-43 APN 202-22-015F KENNETH SHEEHAN TR ZONING: RU-43 APN 202-22-009X ANGEL / MARIA DOMINGUEZ ZONING: RU-43 APN 202-22-003L CIRCLE MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC ZONING: RU-43 ARIZONA STATE TRUST LAND EXISTING WASH PLAN 2 PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 2C PLAN 2G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2C PLAN 1 PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 1C PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 1C PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 3G PLAN 2G PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2G PLAN 2G PLAN 3G PLAN 2C PLAN 2C PLAN 1C PLAN 3G PLAN 1C PLAN 1C PLAN 3G PLAN 3G PLAN 1 PLAN 1C PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3G PLAN 2 PLAN 2G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 3G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1C PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 3G PLAN 3G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 LEASING / RECREATION AREA ±1.0 AC C I R C L E M O U N T A I N R D I N T E R S T A T E 17 POCKET PARK POCKET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PASEO I - 1 7 F R O N T A G E R O A D 9' x 18' PARKING STALL (TYP.) 25.0' 26' PRIVATE DRIVE 26' PRIVATE DRIVE 26' PRIVATE DRIVE 26' PRIVATE DRIVE 26' PRIVATE DRIVE 49' ENTRY DRIVE 20' 26' PRIVATE DRIVE 9' x 18' PARKING STALL (TYP.) 9' x 18' PARKING STALL (TYP.) REFUSE ENCLOSURE (TYP.) TRASH COMPACTOR 26' PRIVATE DRIVE FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH FH REFUSE ENCLOSURE (TYP.) 20' GATED ENTRY R = 25,028.70' L = 1244.57' D= 2º 50' 57" 100.0' B.S.L. PROP. 10.0' R/W 20.0' B.S.L. PROP. 40.0' R/W 25.0' 25.0' 25.0' BLOCK WALL BLOCK WALL 40.0' R/W 8.0' 7.0' 7.0' 15.0' B.S.L. 15.0' B.S.L. 3.8' 7.8' 22.0' POCKET PARK POCKET PARK PRE-APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR ANTHEM 114 PROJECT 1 N.T.S. VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAM DEVELOPER: BELLA FLOR COMMUNITIES 1635 N. GREENFIELD ROAD, STE. 115 MESA, AZ 85205 TEL: (480) 553-7236 CONTACT: HUDD HASSELL hudd@belaflor.com PLANNER, ENGINEER, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: EPS GROUP, INC. 1130 N. ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, STE. 120 MESA, AZ 85210 TEL: (480)-503-2250 CONTACT: BRENNAN MAHER brennan.maher@epsgroupinc.com PROJECT INFORMATION A.P.N. 202-22-003M, 002A, 002B, 002C LOCATION: NEC OF I-17 AND CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD ADDRESS: 44421 N BLACK CANYON HWY NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 CITY OF PHOENIX VILLAGE: RIO VISTA CURRENT LAND USE: VACANT / NATURAL DESERT EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONING: C-2 AND C-3 PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 PRD GROSS AREA: +/- 31.06 ACRES NET AREA: +/- 29.74 ACRES NO. OF UNITS: 288 GROSS DENSITY: 9.27 DU/AC. LOT SALES: NO OPEN SPACE: +/- 13.43 ACRES (45% OF NET) LOT COVERAGE: 34% THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CONFORM WITH THE R-2 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTS OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CONTAINING 288 LOTS WITH A GROSS DENSITY OF 9.27 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION WITH WATER, SEWER, ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS COMMUNITY WILL CONSIST OF PRIVATE STREETS, COMMON AREAS AND AMENITIES TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. Preliminary Site Plan Project: Sheet No. Job No. Dial 8-1-1 or 1-800-STAKE-IT (782-5348) In Maricopa County: (602)263-1100 T:480.503.2250 F:480.503.2258 | 20-1099 - Anthem 114 Anthem 114 Project 1 44421 N. Black Canyon Highway New River, AZ JH PEM 35TH AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) JENNY LIN ROAD 43RD AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) SEC 3 T.6 N., R.2 E. CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD SUBJECT SITE INTERSTATE 17 80 0 80 160 scale: 1" = 80' feet PA01 Or Preliminary Construction Not For Recording Or Preliminary Construction Not For Recording A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, NEW RIVER, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA UNIT MIX SUMMARY PLAN 1 1 BD / 1 BA 947 SF 88 UNITS (31%) PLAN 1C 1 BD / 1 BA 1,231 SF 33 UNITS (11%) PLAN 2 2 BD / 2 BA 1,103 SF 44 UNITS (15%) PLAN 2C 2 BD / 2 BA 1,167 SF 39 UNITS (14%) PLAN 2G 2 BD / 2 BA 1,103 SF 38 UNITS (13%) PLAN 3G 3 BD / 2 BA 1,398 SF 46 UNITS (16%) TOTAL 288 UNITS (100%) PARKING SUMMARY REQUIRED PARKING: 1 & 2 BED (1.5 PER UNIT) 243 UNITS x 1.5 = 365 SPACES 3 BED (2 PER UNIT) 45 UNITS x 2 = 90 SPACES TOTAL 455 SPACE (1.57 PER UNIT) PROPOSED PARKING: GARAGE (PLANS 1C. 2C, 2G & 3G) 300 SPACES DRIVEWAY 84 SPACES OPEN 157 SPACES TOTAL 541 SPACES (1.9 PER UNIT) SOUTH 1/4 COR, SEC 3, T6N, R2E, BRASS CAP MONUMENT W/SECTIONAL MARKINGS SW COR, SEC 3, T6N, R2E, FOUND BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE "CITY OF PHOENIX" SE CORNER, SEC 3, T6N, R2E, FOUND GLO MONUMENT W/SECTIONAL MARKINGS LEGEND FLOW ARROW FIRE HYDRANT ESMT EASEMENT DKT DOCKET BK BOOK PG PAGE MCR MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS P/S PRIVATE STREET R/W RIGHT OF WAY BSL SETBACK LINE MUT MULTI-USE TRAIL MUTE MULTI-USE TRAIL EASEMENT L/S LANDSCAPE SETBACK CITY OF PHOENIX Planning & Development Department MAY 04 2023 N0°08'44"W 1226.65' S86°46'07"E 193.96' N84°51'54"E 117.81' N54°26'00"E 73.95' N54°26'00"E 87.61' N64°06'24"E 87.89' N77°13'35"E 83.47' N88°07'50"E 66.42' N64°48'20"E 164.65' N74°40'59"E 97.41' N2°28'05"E 245.35' N89°45'10"W 1074.15' 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 16 18 19 23 20 21 22 24 25 28 27 26 29 33 30 32 35 31 34 36 37 38 39 43 40 41 42 44 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 14.8' 47 48 52 74 107 105 113 114 121 108 106 109 123 110 112 111 116 115 117 134 119 127 129 151 136 137 139 46 45 154 49 54 50 51 56 53 57 55 58 163 164 59 168 61 66 64 62 63 170 68 65 172 67 70 69 73 71 75 76 118 131 141 120 135 146 126 122 130 128 125 124 144 143 152 140 138 132 133 147 158 142 145 153 160 148 150 155 157 169 149 156 165 159 161 162 167 171 166 60 72 APN 202-22-003M CIRCLE MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC ZONING: C-3 ARIZONA STATE TRUST LAND ANTHEM 114 PHASE 1 ANTHEM 114 PHASE 3 ANTHEM 114 PHASE 3 100.0' BSL 20.0' L/S 5.3' R/W APN: 202-22-003G CIRCLE MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC ZONING: C-2 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PEDESTRIAN TRAIL N89°51'16"E 19.42' N29°56'51"E 31.92' N4°11'12"E 6.85' N70°05'33"E 19.51' N89°52'37"E 48.41' S3°44'22"W 375.39' S4°16'15"W 121.17' GATED ENTRY 50.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S AMENITY AREA 104.0' HIGHWAY ESMT DKT 3215, PG 242, MCR 100.0' HIGHWAY ESMT BK 535, PG 11, MCR 9.4' 11.1' 4.8' 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S 33.0' P/S I N T E R S T A T E 17 I - 1 7 F R O N T A G E R O A D CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR ANTHEM 114 PROJECT 2 N.T.S. VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAM DEVELOPER: BELLA FLOR COMMUNITIES 1635 N. GREENFIELD ROAD, STE. 115 MESA, AZ 85205 TEL: (480) 553-7236 CONTACT: HUDD HASSELL hudd@belaflor.com PLANNER, ENGINEER, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: EPS GROUP, INC. 1130 N. ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, STE. 120 MESA, AZ 85210 TEL: (480)-503-2250 CONTACT: BRENNAN MAHER brennan.maher@epsgroupinc.com PROJECT INFORMATION A.P.N. 202-22-003L; 003D; 003J; 003K; 003F; A PORTION OF 003G LOCATION: NEC OF I-17 AND CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD ADDRESS: 44421 N BLACK CANYON HWY NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 CITY OF PHOENIX VILLAGE: RIO VISTA CURRENT LAND USE: VACANT / NATURAL DESERT EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONING: C-2, S-1 AND RU-43 PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 PRD GROSS AREA: +/- 26.43 ACRES NET AREA: +/- 24.78 ACRES NO. OF LOTS: 45'x75' 172 LOTS DENSITY: 6.9 DU/AC. (OF NET) LOTS FOR SALE: NO THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CONFORM WITH THE R-2 PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTS OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CONTAINING 172 LOTS WITH A GROSS DENSITY OF 6.9 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS PER ACRE. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION WITH WATER, SEWER, ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS COMMUNITY WILL CONSIST OF PRIVATE STREETS, COMMON AREAS AND AMENITIES TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. Conceptual Layout Project: Sheet No. Job No. Dial 8-1-1 or 1-800-STAKE-IT (782-5348) In Maricopa County: (602)263-1100 T:480.503.2250 F:480.503.2258 | 20-1099 - Anthem 114 Anthem 114 Project 2 44421 N. Black Canyon Highway New River, AZ BM JAJ 35TH AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) JENNY LIN ROAD 43RD AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) SEC 3 T.6 N., R.2 E. CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD SUBJECT SITE INTERSTATE 17 CONCEPT Or Preliminary Construction Not For Recording Or Preliminary Construction Not For Recording A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, NEW RIVER, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA 80 0 80 160 scale: 1" = 80' feet LEGEND FLOW ARROW FIRE HYDRANT ESMT EASEMENT DKT DOCKET BK BOOK PG PAGE MCR MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS P/S PRIVATE STREET R/W RIGHT OF WAY BSL SETBACK LINE MUT MULTI-USE TRAIL MUTE MULTI-USE TRAIL EASEMENT L/S LANDSCAPE SETBACK From: Tyler Estes To: adam@witheymorris.com Cc: Julianna Pierre Subject: Z-8-22-1 GPA-RV-1-22-1 questions Date: Sunday, March 6, 2022 11:38:01 AM Good Morning!, I received information about the proposed community on the I-17 frontage road and Circle Mountain Rd. The developer is looking to rezone for residential, which I believe is the best usage for the land in question. My primary suggestions for the developer and the City of Phoenix and the Rio Vista planning committee are as follows. 1. The first deals with traffic safety. You can see in the video that at night it is very hard to distinguish between vehicles on I-17 and the frontage road. The best solution for this would be to make Arroyo Norte Dr, Circle Mountain Drive, and any entrance to the proposed community be traffic Circles. This will slow down traffic and allow holigh volumes of residential and school traffic to access the frontage road where the potential for accidents are of much reduced energy. https://photos.app.goo.gl/GrsEQVzuz4iEa9XQ8 [photos.app.goo.gl] 2. Widen the Frontage Road and create "Green Lanes". On the west side of I-17 the City of Phoenix recently widened 43rd Ave as well as Circle Mountain Road to include Green Lanes. This is following with the CoP plans to update roadways to be more bike and commuter friendly and safe. This provides a unique opportunity for the CoP and ADOT to collaborate together for my 3rd suggestion. 3. Span I-17 and Circle Mountain Rd with a pedestrian bridge. This will provide a multifaceted solution to a host of issues plaguing this section of I-17 and the congestion that is steadily building on the Anthem Way and I-17 overpass. As the developer knows accessing the properties along the I-17 frontage road in this area is cumbersome and will become increasingly congested and dangerous. A K-12 school is presently being built on Arroyo Norte Drive and the Frontage Rd, as well as a 170 unit apartment complex, and 70 additional single family units are also being built on Aroyo Norte Dr. When the new development is also added it will create even more traffic. I have been mulling over this issue for the last several years and I believe a pedestrian bridge at Circle Mountain is the best solution to solve a lot of problems. A. Reduce K-12 traffic in the morning and afternoon for both Great Hearts Academy, Caurus Academy, and Canyon Springs for both the frontage road and 43rd Ave. Many students live on the opposite side of the I-17 in relation to their school. A pedestrian bridge would provide a path for walkers and bike riders to access their campus safely. Thereby alleviating the number of vehicle crossing Anthem Way and I-17. B. Decrease retail traffic along the frontage Road, Navigation Way, Anthem Way, and 43rd Ave. As the developer knows there is increased market demand for communities that have easy access to retail and entertainment. Building the pedestrian bridge would give the east side residents of the proposed community, as well as Anthem Residents, a safe path to access retail and entertainment on the westside of the I-17. This includes Goodwill, The Anthems Outlets, Walmart, and many other small businesses and restaurants. C. Sometimes I-17 backs up and traffic overflows onto the Frontage Rd blocking any traffic moving along the frontage road. A pedestrian bridge will allow retail access to residents in this area during such an event. Also there has been a lot of concerns expressed by members of the community on both sides of I-17 that there are not enough roads to evacuate residents in an emergency. A pedestrian bridge would give an additional escape route from the east to the west or the west to the east in the slim chance of a catastrophic wildfire. https://photos.app.goo.gl/rsNgbE1cfHyRiJ259 [photos.app.goo.gl] https://azdot.gov/adot-blog/new-bicyclepedestrian-bridge-open-chandler [azdot.gov] For the pedestrian what is the process to get such an idea up for consideration? Thank you for your time. 1 Phoenix City Councilmembers Phoenix City Hall 200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Re: Anthem 114 Development - GPA Case No: GPA-RV-1-22-1, Case No: 2-8-22-1 April 24, 2023 Dear City of Phoenix Councilmembers and Rio Vista Village Planning Committee: I am sending this letter in regard to the housing development project along the I-17 frontage road between Anthem and New River (identified in the November 16th formal city council meeting as #45 for the Proposed I-17 and Jenny Lin Road Annexation Public Hearing with Case No: 2-8-22-1). Although this project may be viewed on the outskirts, in reality it is a regional transportation and recreation connection between the communities of New River and Anthem. 1. A perimeter pathway around the project site is necessary to ensure connectivity between New River and Anthem, as well as to ensure public access to Daisy Mountain is protected. The New River/Desert Hills Area Plan shows future trail connections planned from this area east into Daisy Mountain. The Friends of Daisy Mountain Trails also have a planned trail connection into Tonto National Forest. All communities deserve active transportation options including rural communities. Anthem is a high kid-density area and safe pathways for bicycle and pedestrian travel are necessary. Biking is in the top 3 for adult outdoor recreation activities nationwide and it is the #1 outdoor activity for kids under 15 nationwide. The pathway is needed to support active transportation and recreation opportunities and provide a safe environment. Approximately 64% of Maricopa County is obese or overweight according to the 2020 Maricopa Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan. In addition, mental health effects are becoming more prevalent among youth as discussed in the 2021 U.S. Surgeon Generals Advisory on Youth Mental Health. The pathway would help to provide a safe place for people to exercise as well as provide a connection to Daisy Mountain where hiking, picnicking, and escaping to the natural environment is possible. In addition to physical benefits, there are mental health benefits associated with spending time in nature as well. It is essential when creating a built environment that the design includes safe places for those interested in active transportation and recreation to participate. There have been many fatalities due to excluding active transportation options. We believe the addition on a perimeter path for this project would help provide for a safer regional transportation and recreation connection. 2 In addition, with increased active transportation options there would be economic benefits to both the New River businesses to the north and Anthem businesses to the south due to the increased and existing populations. As a portion of the site is changing from commercial to residential, it makes sense to provide current businesses in the area with another way for people to reach them. A perimeter pathway is necessary to ensure active transportation options for residents of the area and to protect a regional connection, as well as public access to Daisy Mountain. Rural communities deserve active transportation options too. 2. Bike lanes should be added to the frontage road. As e-bikes increase in popularity and create the opportunity for people to travel much further we need to have the infrastructure in place to be able to best accommodate them and provide a safe environment for all roadway users. Some bicyclists prefer to be on the road and travel at high speeds (even without a motor) and bike lanes could support the infrastructure for them as well as e-bike users. 3. Road lanes need to be reviewed for an emergency during a wildlife or other event. Another concern is if a wildfire occurred to the north, people in New River would use the I-17 and frontage road along this project site to go south. Due to the increased population, as well as to ensure egress during an emergency, the frontage road may need to be widened or lanes added. One consideration is developing the pathway to standards that would allow emergency vehicles to use them and bypass traffic in case of an emergency. 4. Protect dark skies. Another concern is the impact of light pollution on the dark skies in the New River area. We request the project as well as others in the area use certain design features to reduce light impacts onto neighboring communities. With just one social media post, twenty-one community members have signed up to protect dark skies in New River. 5. Protect scenic views. The project area is in a Scenic Corridor, so views of Daisy Mountain and Gavilan Peak in particular should be protected. The I-17 Scenic Corridor Overlay was adopted in 1999 and the Scenic Corridor extends from Carefree Highway north to Yavapai County. The designation was established to preserve environmentally sensitive land areas and view corridors, and encourage innovative and sensitive planning and quality design. 3 The Maricopa County New River/Desert Hills Area Plan should be referenced to ensure that any protections this site was granted being in Maricopa County still apply (such as the scenic corridor). Even if the Maricopa County parcel is not annexed, we ask that the City of Phoenix still review and accommodate the intended goals of the New River/Desert Hills Area Plan as this site is adjacent to county land. In particular, protection of the viewshed including Daisy Mountain and Gavilan Peak is essential. One concern with the annexation of the Maricopa County area is that the protection of these viewsheds may not occur. 6. Protect public access to lands accessible to the public and develop a trailhead parking area to help provide adequate and safe access to Daisy Mountain. The additional of a perimeter path would help to provide access to Daisy Mountain as well as thousands of acres of Arizona State Land (where a low-cost permit can be obtained) and eventually to Tonto National Forest. The pathway would also help provide access to the Maricopa Trail, a 315-mile loop that would provide access to the entire Phoenix metropolitan area. This connection is especially critical for those in west New River who would be essentially cut off without this connection. The trailhead parking area is important as the development will being in many new residents and expose more people to Daisy Mountain. The City of Phoenix has seen challenges with inadequate parking and public access for the mountain preserves. The trailhead parking area would help to ensure adequate parking is available for the community. 7. Transition of density from higher density near the Anthem area to lower density near New River. One concern heard from residents in New River is the stark contrast that could exist if development is high density as it approaches New River. We ask you to consider a transition of density as residents in the area have expressed this concern. 8. Maintain the existing commercial portion of the property instead of have only residential homes. With more people moving into the area, it will create more use on existing shopping and retail areas, so the commercial portion of the project should remain as such to provide adequate commercial services to people in the area. 9. Do not allow a portion of the site to be for the construction of single-family homes in rent for perpetuity. 4 Homes should be available for sale to the general public, not available for rent. It makes sense in apartment complexes where there may be more communal aspects of the development such as sharing building and maintenance expenses associated with the building structure. The single family homes should be available for purchase or we are going to continue to see a lack of affordable housing in the area. One of the main concerns is that if a pathway is not developed with this project along the frontage road, it will never happen and that regional transportation and recreation connection would be lost. Although New River may seem outside of town, there have been people living here since the late 1800’s and the area is continuing to grow. There has been a 16 percent increase in population from 2010 to 2020 and the area is expected to grow even more with the addition of the new TSMC factory in the North Valley. I ask that you listen to these concerns and incorporate these suggestions for the project as it moves forward in the development process. As part of the annexation of Maricopa County we ask that all Maricopa County Plans are reviewed and incorporated in the project design, that design features reduce light and visual impacts, and that the project supports active transportation by providing regional connectivity with the addition of a perimeter path. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. I am also be available to meeting in-person to discuss these concerns. Thank you, Eileen Baden, AICP eileenbaden@gmail.com 908-797-9727 Past President, Arizona Association of Environmental Professionals Advisory Board Member, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at ASU Board Member, Friends of Daisy Mountain Trails From: Adrian G Zambrano To: Adrian G Zambrano Subject: 2023-04-25 - Opposition - Cheryl Wright Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:35:51 AM From: cheryl wright <cherylwright11@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:00 AM To: PDD Long Range Planning <pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov> Subject: Zoning April 24, 2023 Phoenix Planning and Development Attn: Zoning Counter 200 West Washington Street, 2nd floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Dear City of Phoenix Zoning, I am a New River / Desert Hills community resident and writing to strongly oppose the re-zoning initiative: GPA Case No: GPA-RV-122-1, Case Z-8-22-1 on Circle Mountain Rd, and SE corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Rd. This area has in place existing zoning for single-family residential acreage parcels. Multi-family dwellings would destroy the fabric of the environment and community. You do not have my support for such new development. Sincerely, Cheryl Wright 5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 1/22 Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 214 have signed. Let’s get to 500! At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations! Laurie Ricci started this petition to Rio Vista Village Planner Julianna Pierre Please sign this petition asking the city of Phoenix to deny this zoning change. Protect our rural lifestyle. Property The subject site is approximately 114.5 acres of vacant land located east of I-17 between Circle Mountain Road and Jenny Lin Road (the “Property”). By using Change.org, you agree to our Terms of Service. New terms include a binding Arbitration Agreement on an individual basis with an option to opt-out. Petition details Comments Updates At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations! Sign this petition 5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 2/22 The property consists of 14 parcels, Maricopa County APNs 202-22-001B, -001C, -001D, -003D, -003F, -003G, -003H, -003J, -003K, -003L, -003M, - 002B, -002C, and -002. The Property is currently zoned a blend of S-1, C- 2 and C-3 per zoning case Z-103-07. There are also portions which are still within Maricopa County and zoned RU-43. The Property’s General Plan land use designation is both Commercial and Residential 3.5 to 5. To the north of the Property is Jenny Line Road, and then wildcat county properties zoned RU-43; to the east is vacant State Land; to the west is the I-17 freeway and then homes zoned R1-6; and to the south is Circle Mountain Road, then an outdoor storage facility (zoned C-3 and C-2 in the City of Phoenix, and County lands zoned RU-43 ). Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Requests Z-8-22-1 The applicant seeks to rezone the Property from S-1 (9 acres), C-2 and C-3 (90.8 acres), and RU-43 County (14.7 acres) to R-2 (66.51 acres), R-3 (32.07 acres) and R-3A (20.5 acres) for the development of a new, master planned residential community that includes a mix of single-family homes for sale and rental communities. GPA-RV-1-22-1 A General Plan Amendment is filed as a companion case with this request. The General Plan Amendment proposes a change from Commercial and Residential (3.5 to 5 du/ac) to Residential (10 to 15 du/ac), Residential (15 + du/acre), and Residential (5 to 10 du/acre). Applicant's Representative If you have any questions about the request, you may also reach Adam Baugh at Withey Morris, PLC at adam@witheymorris.com or 602-230-0600. You may also submit a comment or questions at the Contact Us page. City of Phoenix Staff The Rio Vista Village Planner assigned to this case is Julianna Pierre, who may be reached at 602-534-5829 or julianna.pierre@phoenix.gov. Ms. Pierre will be able to answer your questions regarding the city review and hearing process and, once it is completed, the staff position on the request. You may also write the city at Phoenix Planning & Development Department, 200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. Please be sure to reference the rezoning case numbers so your comments may be included in the case files. Virtual Neighborhood Meeting We are holding a virtual neighborhood meeting to discuss the rezoning and general plan amendment proposal on March 17, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. We will make a live presentation via web conference during which we will describe the application and requests. After the presentation, participants will be able to submit questions the development team will answer via live webcam. To participate in the meeting, please email Hannah Bleam at hannah@witheymorris.com and request a link to the meeting. The only way to access the meeting will be via the link from Ms. Bleam. At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations! 5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 3/22 Report a policy violation Start a petition of your own This petition starter stood up and took action. Will you do the same? Updates Meeting link for today! ‼️New Master Planned Community‼️Community meeting details for later today! 5:30pm. Please find the zoom information for today’s virtual neighborhood meeting beginning at 5:30pm regarding the Circle Mountain/I-17 rezoning and general plan amendment: Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82392882168?… Laurie Ricci 1 year ago More updates Reasons for signing Richard Zimmerman · 1 year ago I live in the area and the city and county should stick with the general area plan, not choose to pander to a developers greed. Anthem is 5 homes per acre on the high side, new River is 1 home per acre. Hoe could it be harmonious to allow a developer to 15 + dwelling units per … Read more 2 · Report Van Hostetler · 1 year ago Simple. This does not improve our great, balanced community. It has exactly the opposite effect. At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations! 5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 4/22 It is not "master-planned" Anthem is 1 · Report View all reasons for signing Petitions promoted by other Change.org users At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations! From: Eileen Baden To: Adrian G Zambrano Subject: New River Daisy Mountain Area Plan Date: Saturday, May 6, 2023 9:47:19 PM Attachments: image.png image.png Hi Adrian, Have you had a chance to skim the New River Daisy Mountain Area Plan? https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56744/Daisy-Mountain---New-River-Area- Plan-compressed [maricopa.gov] This is from page 22: Also, the land use map below (page 11) here shows a future trail along New River Road, and I would love to see that connection made for the Rio Vista Planning Committee so the pathway can continue west on the northside, offset from New River Road (similar to the Sonoran Desert Parkway). Another example I've sent you is the River Mountains Loop Trail - Lake Mead National Recreation Area (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) [nps.gov]. The DG or paved pathway makes it more accessible to those of all ages and abilities (and the view north iis still pristine desert, making this the perfect place for this path). I recently attended a meeting with Supervisor Gates and he seemed to agree that the pathway was necessary for a regional connection between Anthem and New River as it's a long way around Daisy Mountain. Thank you, -- Eileen Baden, AICP 908-797-9727 eileenbaden@gmail.com From: H B To: Adrian G Zambrano Cc: Joshua Bednarek Subject: Re: Proposed "Master Planned Community"- Anthem/New River Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:28:43 PM Hi Adrian and Joshua, I'm incredibly frustrated that you're still moving forward with the Proposed Master Planned Community off the Frontage Road. No matter how many letters or meetings myself and my neighbors send/have you all seem to not listen. I have three questions for tonight's meeting: 1 - Is there a zoom link? 2 - What are the total number of homes AND apartments (individual apts) proposed (including phase III? 3 - I heard a possible rumor of the Frontage Road becoming a one way??? Please confirm. If this is even a consideration - of all the terrible build ideas you're discussing in our area - this has to be the worst idea! Please tell me this is untrue. Here are my concerns with the Proposed Master Planned Community. I will continue to voice my concerns! You tell me where, in Arizona, that there is a Frontage Road (with no other street access - back streets, side streets, etc), that has a high traffic school, multiple home sites, already flowing traffic, AND a "Master Planned Community"??? You can't! Because it's impractical and unsafe! All the neighborhoods that live off the Frontage Road as well as all the school children/parents - have ONE STREET to enter and exit. Phoenix Frontage Roads at least have other streets that they can detour and drive through if the Frontage Road is full. WE DON'T HAVE THAT!! I know you all don't care because you either don't know the area, don't live in the area, or won't be impacted. But this WILL CAUSE SAFETY HAZARDS!! I take pictures EVERYTIME the Frontage Road is backed up. An average housrhold has 2 cars. Your projections of Homes and. Apartments will lead to an additional. Cars on the Frontage Road. This is absurd and again UNSAFE! You will be causing traffic congestion. You tried this before. You NEED to listen to the neighbors! Not just let it go in one ear and out the other. I don't understand why you're insistant on unnecessarily cramming too many homes in one area. There is NO reason you can't build 1/2 acre to 1 acre lots there. I'm not trying to be unreasonable and say don't build. But DO NOT put a massive amount of homes off a single Frontage Road. We've had accidents and emergencies in the past which have caused the Frontage Road to close for hours (leaving all residents unable to go to their homes). Once these are built, you can't just tear them down if you find that you screwed up. If you build these and the Frontage Road is bumper to bumper (unsafe traffic congestion), then what???? You all just turn your head and say oh - at least we made money - sucks to be them. Then we're stuck in it. It will never go back, it will never get better. Traffic is already increasing. We're land locked - meaning - We don't have options for the possibility of future expansion of the Frontage Road. So because of that reason - that's why I'm so passionate about this! This decision can destroy the area and again (I'm going to keep bringing this up) cause unsafe conditions for all the school children and everyone who lives off the Frontage Road. I've tried to go to every meeting to fight this and I will continue as well. Please make the right decision and do NOT build this proposed "Master Planned Community" off the Frontage Road. Thank you, Harmony Brown 623-693-3513 Very concerned resident Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms] From: H B <hwb524@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:41:02 PM To: joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov> Subject: School and New Builds - Anthem/New River Hi Joshua, I'm so incredibly frustrated with the City of Phoenix planning and development and anyone else involved in approving the school and housing developments in Anthem/New River. 1. You didn't notify the residents that a potential school was going to be built or even allow us to provide our feedback on that. We would have clearly explained that that was a terrible idea! The backup on the frontage road has been over an hour. The news has even reported it. 2. As you can see from the attached pictures the traffic has been horrendous! There was a complete backup on our Frontage Road. Why were you all not out there to assess it? Where's the traffic study?? Why did you not anticipate the long lines of traffic and create a longer extra turn lane for them off the Frontage Road? You can easily dig in to the land on the East Side to create an extra turning lane. Someone dropped the ball in planning. 3. When the bungalows were being proposed - multiple, multiple residents join the call to express concerns of traffic, traffic study, practicality, safety issues, the fact that the frontage road is are only way in-and-out , and so much more! The City of Phoenix literally blew everyone off and accepted the build. So, how is it that the residents could anticipate this back up (and the backup these bungalows will cause), yet the building and planning department couldn't anticipate that??! That's because no one in the department even researched the area to understand the massive backup you are all causing! 4. The proposed apartments off of the exact same Frontage Road. The same residents got on the phone calls for the proposed apartments, expressing the same concerns as number 3. Again, no lack of knowledge of our area from the City of Phoenix, no concern for our safety or well being, or the traffic congestion and ridiculousness it was going to cause. As well as NO proper traffic study (after the school opened). They simply approved it despite the residents' concerns and legitimate issues. 5. And now on top of all the rest, the City of Phoenix also approved a master plan community off the exact same Frontage Road less than a mile away. As if the other builds and the existing traffic isn't enough, they want to add MORE to this small Frontage Road. Again, lacking knowledge from the City of Phoenix or any concern or regards to safety for the current residents. 6. The upcoming improvements to I-17 will be underway soon. In doing so, this will cause major backup on the frontage road when the freeway is minimized to one lane. Even with its current 2 lanes every weekend, the Frontage Road is heavily backed up due to some sort of accident on the freeway or just simply backed up from all the traffic going North. Once again, City of Phoenix did not take any of that into consideration in allowing 5, yes 5! new builds to go into one small confined area with one way in and out! 7. This is not your typical Phoenix area build.. In Phoenix the frontage roads are an extra way for the residents to get in-and-out. Typically, the homes have other routes to take to get in or out - side streets. This is not the case in this area!! There is one road for All of these people to get in-and-out. 8. Proper traffic studies SHOULD have been done before any approvals!! Including the school. Why would anyone think a school off a limited access Frontage Road would be a good idea?! In one of the meetings, the apartments were basing their traffic study off of a 2011 traffic study. That is so incredibly outdated it is not even valid with the growth in that area! The nearby homes weren't even built in 2011! 9 - A possible help to this traffic congestion (that you are all causing) would be to consider an offramp between Circle Mountain Rd and Jenny Lin (in the middle of Anthem Way and New River Road). It would make sense to have it be an on and off ramp both north and southbound (which would also benefit the other school (Caurus) on the west side of the I-17. I propose the on/off ramp be at the north end of the neighborhood that is on the west side of the I-17. DO NOT build the on/off ramp at the Frontage Road and Circle Mountain Rd!!!! We CANNOT handle it and it would be worse!!!! Also DO NOT make the Frontage Road a one way!!! That will also make things even worse!!!! 10 - Don't say that these homes are needed because the new plant off the 303, because there is PLENTY, PLENTY of land between the 303 and Anthem! You do NOT need to build 4 new builds in under 1 mile radius off a Frontage Road. It's NOT all about money. You need to think about people and safety as well. It's just NOT feasible to have this much traffic with no other routes. 11. All the neighbors that live off the Frontage Road are INCREDIBLY frustrated that they have to wait an hour to get home. If there is an Emergency, we're screwed. We all tried to explain that all these builds would be a traffic nightmare when we were on the calls trying to oppose the builds. Yet you all ignored us! You all need to MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. For being planning and development, you did NOT plan well for this. And if you continue to allow these other 3 builds to go in, you will get even more complaints and potentially cause a safety hazard for all us residents and all the students. Please STOP/Deny the bungalow build, the apartments, and the proposed master planned community. Please do your job and DO A PROPER TRAFFIC STUDY. Please KNOW THE AREA when you approve new builds. Do your research and listen to the residents. It's NOT all about money. Your lack of planning and efficiency has led to an extreme traffic backup and WILL be SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE if the other 3 new builds are approved. This area SIMPLY CANNOT handle this much traffic!! Please help correct this terrible situation. Thank you, Harmony Brown Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android