Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-60-20-8.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
109897 characters
Staff Report Z-60-20-8
(Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Date
April 12, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date
May 6, 2021
Request From:
R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) (19.35
acres)
Request To:
PUD (Planned Unit Development) (19.35 acres)
Proposed Use
Planned Unit Development to allow single-
family residential development
Location
Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver
Road
Owner/Applicant
Virtua 35th, LLC
Representative
Paul E Gilbert, Beus Gilbert McGroder
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map
Designation
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Street Map
Classification
35th Avenue
Arterial Scenic
Drive
33-foot west half street
Carver Road
Local Street
Varies, 35-56.6-foot
northwest half street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed PUD will provide new housing options in Laveen while remaining
respectful of the local surroundings. The maximum permitted density in the PUD
narrative is below what is currently allowed under the existing zoning of the site, and
several mitigating elements have been incorporated to help buffer the development from
the surrounding community, such as generous open space areas and robust
landscaping standards.
Attachment B
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 2 of 19
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESERT LANDSCAPE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Propose new design standards that address drainage, use
of native plants, edge treatment, and access – both visual and physical – for
private and public development adjacent to public preserves, parks, washes and
open spaces.
The project site is located in close proximity to the Carver Mountains, and is situated
along 35th Avenue, which is an arterial scenic drive. To ensure a natural transition from
the mountains to the site and the preservation of the natural environment, the PUD
proposes several enhanced standards that address the use and development of
culverts, washes, and drainage channels, as well as special attention to hillside edge
treatments.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CANALS & TRAILS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Provide multi-use trail connections where appropriate.
This PUD proposes a multi-use trail along 35th Avenue, which will connect to the overall
City of Phoenix trail system.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
This PUD sets forth enhanced landscaping and shade standards along the public street
frontages, interior streets, and common open space areas.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Laveen Southwest Growth Study – See Background Item No. 4.
Food Action Plan – See Background Item No. 8.
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 10.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 12.
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 3 of 19
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use
Zoning
On Site
Vacant, former mining site
R1-8
North
Vacant
S-1
South
Vacant (single-family subdivided
land)
R1-18
East (across
35th Avenue)
Farmland and single-family
residences
Maricopa County RU-43
West
Vacant
R1-18
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1.
This request is to
rezone a 19.35-acre site
located at the northwest
corner of 35th Avenue
and Carver Road from
R1-8 (Single-Family
Residence District) to
PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow a
single-family residential
development.
2.
The site has a General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre. The proposed PUD with a density of 3.15 dwelling units per
acre is consistent with this designation.
Zoning Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 4 of 19
The surrounding General Plan Land Use Map designations are as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH
Parks / Open Space – Future 1 du/ac, Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre.
EAST
Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre.
WEST
Parks / Open Space – Future 1 du/ac.
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 5 of 19
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3.
The subject site is zoned
R1-8 (Single-Family
Residence District) and
is currently vacant.
The surrounding
conditions are as follows:
NORTH
Vacant hillside properties
zoned S-1 (Ranch or
Farm Residence
District).
SOUTH
Vacant land zoned R1-
18 (Single-Family
Residence District).
EAST
Farmland and large-lot single-family residence homes that are outside the
boundaries of the City of Phoenix and zoned Maricopa County RU-43 (One Acre
Per Dwelling Unit).
WEST
Vacant hillside property zoned R1-18 (Single-Family Residence District).
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 6 of 19
LAVEEN SOUTHWEST GROWTH STUDY
4.
The site is located within
the boundaries of the
Laveen Southwest
Growth Study, which was
developed in 1997 to
analyze the existing
conditions of the Laveen
Village. It provides a land
use and design planning
framework to help shape
the growth in Laveen,
while accounting for
newly annexed farmland
as well as the future
development of the
South Mountain Freeway
Loop, which has since
been completed.
This plan designates the
project as Residential 0
to 1 dwelling units per
acre, which calls for less
density than the current
General Plan Land Use
Map designation of 3.5 to
5 dwelling units per acre.
The proposal is not
consistent with the
Laveen Southwest
Growth Study Land Use
Plan. However, the PUD narrative incorporates several of the key elements from
the study.
The Laveen Southwest Growth Study outlines specific design policies and
standards for various types of developments that will enhance Laveen’s built
environment while remaining respectful of its agricultural heritage. The study
encourages all new developments to use durable, high-quality building materials
and to provide enhanced building design that will contribute to the character of the
area. The Carver Canyon PUD proposes design standards that exceed those
required by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, which are outlined in Background Item
No. 7.e.
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 7 of 19
ZONING HISTORY
5.
The subject site was rezoned to R1-8 in 2007 as part of a larger rezoning area via
Rezoning Case No. Z-165-06-7. The stipulated site plan from this case depicted 22
one-acre lots on the R1-18 portion and 99 single-family detached units on the
portion of the site that now corresponds to the boundaries of the proposed PUD. In
2019, the applicant submitted a Planning Hearing Officer (PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7)
application to modify the stipulations of entitlement from Rezoning Case No. Z-165-
06-7 to facilitate development of the site at a density similar to the original stipulated
site plan. The proposed site plan depicted 92 single-family detached residential
units, with vehicular connections to the west and south of the site. The PHO
application received opposition from the community. The community concerns
expressed were as follows:
• Amend the General Plan to reflect Residential 0-1 dwelling units per acre
and Parks/Open Space;
• Stipulation 19 regarding conditional approval upon development
commencing within 48 months of City Council approval;
• Deletion of Stipulation 19 breaks trust with Laveen residents;
• Approval of the request means loss of local personality, culture, and pride;
• Proposed housing density is too high for the area;
• Residents only want to see 2,000+ square foot houses with generous lots
and ample parking.
The applicant subsequently modified the proposal in response to the community’s
concerns, reducing the density to a maximum of 63 single-family residential lots.
The case was continued several times by the Planning Commission, then continued
again by the City Council to give the applicant more time to work with community
members to resolve their concerns. On October 7, 2020, the City Council continued
the case to the April 17, 2021 hearing date to allow the applicant to pursue a
“downzoning” of the site and reduce the maximum permitted density. The applicant
has requested a continuance of this request to the June 2, 2021 City Council
hearing date.
The proposed PUD permits a maximum density of 61 lots, which is a further
reduction from the previous proposed site plan for PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7. The
PUD development narrative also incorporates several development standards and
design guidelines that the developer agreed to include after extensive discussions
with Laveen Village Planning Committee members and members of the community.
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 8 of 19
Source: Gilmore Planning and Landscape Architecture
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 9 of 19
PROPOSAL
6.
The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation. The Planned
Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
7.
Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described in
the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped April 5, 2021. The PUD
would allow single-family residential uses on the site. The comparative zoning
district utilized in this staff report is R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District), PRD
(Planned Residential Development) option.
a. Land Use Plan
The PUD proposes a single-family detached residential subdivision, with other
limited permitted uses per Section 608 (Residence Districts) of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. Additionally, per staff’s request, a community garden is a permitted use
by right, and accessory sales of products cultivated on the site are permitted at a
home produce stand within ten days of harvesting (removing the Zoning Ordinance
requirement for a use permit). Special Permit uses and multifamily residential shall
not be permitted in this PUD.
Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Gilmore Planning and Landscape Architecture
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 10 of 19
b. Development Standards
The proposed development standards in the PUD are comparable to the R1-8
(Single-Family Residence) zoning district, as the site plan was originally
conceptualized based on this designation. Where the development standards
deviate from this district, they do so to solidify the elements that the applicant
worked on with the community during the PHO process.
Density
The PUD proposes a maximum of 61 single-family residential lots. This is a
reduction of 2 additional lots from the most recently submitted site plan for the PHO
case and is also more restrictive than the R1-8 district.
Building Height
The proposed building height is a maximum of two stories and 30 feet, with a
limitation of one story and 15 feet for lots that are adjacent to 35th Avenue.
Lot Dimensions
The PUD proposes a minimum individual lot size of 6,050 square feet, minimum lot
width of 55 feet, and minimum lot depth of 110 feet. These standards are more
restrictive than the R1-8 district.
Lot Coverage
Individual residential lots shall have a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent for the
primary structure, and a maximum of 50 percent including attached shade
structures. This corresponds to the standards of the R1-8 district.
Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks
The PUD proposes minimum perimeter building setbacks of 15 feet along the
western perimeter, minimum 15 feet along the northern perimeter, and no minimum
setback along the southern perimeter. To preserve the view corridors along 35th
Avenue and Carver Road, and to minimize the impact of this development on the
streetscape, the proposed minimum perimeter building setbacks for the two street
frontages are 100 feet along 35th Avenue and 50 feet along Carver Road.
Perimeter Landscape Setbacks
The proposed perimeter landscape setbacks in this PUD correspond to the same
perimeter building setbacks, with an allowance along the northern property line,
where, within 220 feet of the northeast corner of the property and generally located
by the main community entrance drive access point, there shall be a 10-foot
average landscape setback.
Minimum Individual Lot Building Setbacks
The PUD proposes a minimum 10-foot front yard building setback, with a minimum
22-foot setback for residential lots where the garage is street-facing, and a
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 11 of 19
minimum 10-foot rear yard building setback. The front and rear yard setbacks shall
be a minimum of 35 feet when combined. There is no minimum individual interior
side yard setback, however when combined there shall be a minimum of 13 feet.
The side yard setback for units siding the street shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
Open Space
The PUD proposes a minimum total open space of 26 percent of the entire site. The
open space is further broken down into the following categories: 12 percent
minimum usable open space, five percent minimum undisturbed open space, and 4
percent minimum rock slope open space area. This exceeds the open space
requirements of the R1-8 district.
Lighting
This PUD outlines standards for both street and accent lighting, both of which are
encouraged to be designed in a way to promote a “dark sky” environment within the
development, including using low voltage lighting and shielded light sources.
Drainage Channels, Culverts, and Washes
This PUD sets forth a standard for developing drainage channels, culverts, and
washes to be compatible with the existing natural environment, while minimizing the
impact to the area.
Parking
Parking standards shall be in adherence to the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Hillside Treatment
All hillside development standards within this PUD shall adhere to all City of
Phoenix Hillside Development Standards, including but not limited to density
restrictions, which may require deviations from the included exhibits that have not
been reviewed for Hillside compliance. All Hillside Standards and Requirements
shall override all zoning standards, including conflicts with any of the standards in
this PUD narrative.
c. Landscape Development Standards
The proposed planting standards in this PUD are more robust than those required
for single-family subdivisions in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Streetscape Planting Standards (35th Avenue and Carver Road)
This PUD proposes the following planting standards for landscape tracts located
next to public streets:
• Minimum 60 percent two-inch caliper trees, and minimum 40 percent one-
inch caliper trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings;
• Minimum of five, five-gallon shrubs per tree
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 12 of 19
• Minimum 50 percent live groundcover
Open Space Planting Standards
The following minimum landscaping standards shall apply to open space areas and
perimeter areas not along 35th Avenue and Carver Road:
• A mix of 10 percent three-inch caliper, 40 percent two-inch caliper, and 50
percent one-inch caliper trees:
o Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one tree per 1,000 square feet
of total landscape area;
o Three-inch and two-inch caliper trees shall be placed so they provide
a minimum of 40 percent shade for pedestrian pathways and open
space gathering areas such as tot lots, benches, and picnic tables.
• Minimum of five, five-gallon shrubs per tree
• Minimum 50 percent live groundcover
• The use of turf is limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the total landscape
area
Interior Streetscape Planting Standards
This PUD proposes standards for interior streetscape standards for both attached
and detached sidewalks. For attached sidewalks, minimum 2-inch caliper trees
shall be planted at a minimum of one per lot, or at 60 feet on center. These
plantings will be maintained by the homeowners’ association. For detached
sidewalks, the landscape strip between the sidewalk and back of curb shall be
planted with minimum two-inch caliper trees, placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, with five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and minimum 50 percent
live groundcover. Both of these standards exceed those required by the Zoning
Ordinance for single-family subdivisions.
Shade
This PUD proposes landscape design standards to ensure that all sidewalks,
pedestrian pathways, and communal outdoor areas are shaded at 50% at full tree
maturity.
d. Circulation
Pedestrian Pathways
The PUD proposes to provide detached sidewalks along a minimum of one side of
all internal streets, as well as pedestrian connections to the main common open
space area. Additional approvals for the design of internal streets may be needed
where the requirements of the PUD narrative are not clear. An additional pedestrian
pathway will be provided, connecting the southernmost residential lots to the open
space area located on the northwestern portion of the site. The right-of-way along
35th Avenue and Carver Road falls within Maricopa County jurisdiction, so sidewalk
standards for this area have not been included in the PUD narrative, as they will be
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 13 of 19
subject to Maricopa County Department of Transportation review and approval. In
the event sidewalks are not required along these street frontages, a 10-foot-wide
multi-use trail will be constructed within the boundaries of the property along 35th
Avenue, which will be able to serve as a public pedestrian pathway.
Multi-Use Trail
A 10-foot-wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot multi-use trail easement shall be
provided along 35th Avenue.
Vehicular Circulation
The project will provide a vehicular connection to the property directly adjacent to
the west, as it does not have any street frontage. This PUD proposes to provide a
connection that will terminate as a stub street until the property to the west is
developed, at which point a connection can be completed.
e. Design Guidelines
The PUD contains design guidelines addressing building facades, which are
intended to enhance the visual interest of the structures, mitigate the impact of
building massing and height, and provide a high-quality design. Guidelines include
consistency with the Southwest Contemporary theme of the community, building
elements that appear to be drawn from the local climate and terrain, breaking up of
building masses, and ground-mounted mechanical equipment that shall be fully
screened from view.
The proposed design guidelines within this PUD are consistent with many of those
outlined in the Laveen Southwest Growth Study. The following elements from the
Study have been incorporated into the design guidelines of this PUD: the use of
durable, permanent, high quality materials, lot design that follows natural
topography, and a minimum of two building materials for architectural elevations.
Walls, Fencing and Railing
This PUD proposes screen walls that shall not exceed six feet in height, and that all
screen walls and fencing shall be compatible in style and materials with the overall
theme of the community and each individual home.
f. Signage
The PUD proposes conformance with the Section 705 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
8.
Phoenix Food Action Plan
In 2016, Phoenix City Council adopted the 2050 Environmental Sustainability
Goals, including a Local Food System Goal to maintain a healthy, sustainable,
equitable, and thriving local food system. To support this effort, the City has created
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 14 of 19
its first 2025 Food Action Plan to outline actions and policies, develop and enhance
partnerships, to support people most impacted by food insecurity and hunger, and
to achieve the goals of access to healthy food for everyone in Phoenix. Per staff’s
recommendation, this PUD has included permitted land uses that promote the
growth and cultivation of food locally.
9.
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 the city’s housing stock.
10.
Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. The proposal includes enhanced planting standards
along external and internal streets, as well as landscaping in common areas to
provide shade where there are pedestrian pathways and community gathering
spaces.
11.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To support these principles related to
pedestrian connectivity and safety, the development proposes a gated vehicular
entry off of 35th Avenue, which will require cars to slow down and stop before
entering or exiting the community, detached sidewalks along at least one side of
each street, which will be shaded with large caliper trees, and a shaded multi-use
trail along 35th Avenue.
12.
Reimagine Phoenix
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
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 15 of 19
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. Add details on proposal. This PUD proposes single-family
residential homes, which will be serviced by the City of Phoenix Public Works
Department, Solid Waste Division.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13.
At the time this staff report was written, staff received 21 letters in opposition to the
development. The main points of concern are as follows:
• The density and lot sizes are incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods;
• The proposed PUD is not an improvement of the previous PHO case, but
rather a repackaging of the same development proposal;
• The proposed site plan does not work with the natural contours of the site;
• The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscape buffers;
• The proposal is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best
interest of the community.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14.
The Phoenix Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems
with this case and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire
Code.
15.
The City of Phoenix Floodplain Management division of the Public Works
Department has determined that this parcel is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA), but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2660 L of the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013.
16.
The Phoenix Public Transit Department has required that the developer provide
clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways that connect all sidewalks and
community amenities to provide a safe and direct route for pedestrians. Further,
where pedestrian paths cross drive aisles (not individual residential driveways),
they shall be constructed in a manner so as to visually contrast with the adjacent
parking and drive aisle surfaces. These requirements are addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 9 and 10.
17.
The Phoenix Street Transportation Department has required that the developer
dedicate 55-feet of right-of-way on the west half of 35th Avenue and 40-feet of right-
of-way on the north half of Carver Road. Since Carver Road and 35th Avenue are
under MCDOT jurisdiction, additional right-of-way dedication and improvements
shall be approved by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation and
verification of approval shall be provided to the City of Phoenix Street
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 16 of 19
Findings
1.
The proposed PUD is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation
of 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Transportation Department prior to preliminary submittal. Further, the applicant
shall be required to submit a Traffic Impact Study, as well as a Developer Project
information Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation
Improvement Program, which is a requirement of the Environmental Protection
Agency to meet clean air quality requirements. Also, all streets shall be updated to
meet current ADA guidelines. These requirements are addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 2 through 8.
MISCELLANEOUS
18.
The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 11, 12, and 13.
19.
The project site is located in close proximity to a privately owned airstrip with active
aviation uses. The developer will be required to disclose these aviation uses to all
prospective home buyers. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
20.
Several of the nearby properties are agricultural in nature and include housing of
non-domesticated animals. The developer will be required to disclose this to all
prospective homebuyers. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
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-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 17 of 19
2.
The maximum permitted density within this proposal is significantly less than what
is permitted by right under the site’s current zoning designation.
3.
The proposal effectively solidifies the development standards that were developed
as a collaboration between the applicant and members of the community over a
year-long PHO process.
Stipulations
1.
An updated Development Narrative for the Carver Canyon PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped April 5, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a.
Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: April 5, 2021; City Council adopted: [Add
adoption date].
b.
Page 8, Delete “Churches/Places of Worship (pursuant to the restrictions of
Section 608.E.1 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance; including, Pocket
Shelters shall not be permitted)” from the Prohibited Uses list.
2.
Carver Road and 35th Avenue are under MCDOT jurisdiction, the applicant shall
submit verification of MCDOT approval for improvements prior to preliminary site
plan approval.
3.
The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way for the west half of
35th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department
4.
The developer shall dedicate minimum 40-feet of right-of-way for the north half of
Carver Road, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5.
The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way and provide improvements to
the 35th Avenue and Carver Road intersection as per geometric design approved
by the Maricopa Department of Transportation. Provide approved design and
verification of approval to the City of Phoenix, Street Transportation Department
prior to preliminary submittal. The design will need to provide access to 35th
Avenue south of Carver Road.
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 18 of 19
6.
The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
7.
The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information Form for
the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement Program.
This form is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency to meet clean
air quality requirements.
8.
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. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.
9.
Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building public sidewalks and community amenities using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10.
Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
11.
If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
12.
If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase
I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
13.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Staff Report: Z-60-20-8 (Carver Canyon PUD)
April 7, 2021
Page 19 of 19
14.
Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active aviation uses in the
Hangar Haciendas Units One, Two, and Three subdivisions located approximately
2,300 feet to the east of the subject property in Maricopa County. The form and
content of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions
provided, which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
15.
Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active agricultural uses and
non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content of such documents shall
be according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney
Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
April 7, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Community Correspondence (41 pages)
Carver Canyon PUD Development Narrative date stamped April 5, 2021
Z-51-07
ANX 387
Z-111-05
ANX 342
Z-51-05
Z-165-06
Z-165-06
Z-86-01
Z-128-02
Z-27-07
*
COUNTY
Phoenix City Limits
MARICOPA
*
*
*
*
MARICOPA
COUNTY
R1-8
R1-18
R1-18
S-1
RE-35
R1-18 PRD
CARVER RD
35TH AVE
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
BROADWAY RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTHERN AVE
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
ESTRELLA DR
LAVEEN VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-60-20
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
19.35 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
R1-8
PUD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
83
61
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
106
N/A
Virtua 35th LLC
DATE:
1/29/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 04-20
ZONING MAP
C-6
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: R1-8 ( 19.35 a.c.)
TO:
PUD ( 19.35 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-60-20.mxd
Z-60-20
0.085
0
0.085
0.0425
Miles
Z-51-07
ANX 387
Z-111-05
ANX 342
Z-51-05
Z-165-06
Z-165-06
Z-86-01
Z-128-02
Z-27-07
*
COUNTY
Phoenix City Limits
MARICOPA
*
*
*
*
MARICOPA
COUNTY
R1-8
R1-18
R1-18
S-1
RE-35
R1-18 PRD
CARVER RD
35TH AVE
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
BROADWAY RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTHERN AVE
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
ESTRELLA DR
LAVEEN VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-60-20
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
19.35 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
R1-8
PUD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
83
61
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
106
N/A
Virtua 35th LLC
DATE:
1/29/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 04-20
ZONING MAP
C-6
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: R1-8 ( 19.35 a.c.)
TO:
PUD ( 19.35 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-60-20.mxd
Z-60-20
0.085
0
0.085
0.0425
Miles
10 December 2020
Re: Case Z-60-20, “Carver Canyon” PUD Zone Request
To whom it may concern:
My name is Ben Fisher and I am a property owner in multiple states and my primary residence is in
Laveen, AZ. I hope this message finds you and your loved ones well amidst the pandemic.
Regarding the aforementioned case, I have reviewed the Applicant’s Narrative for the proposed project,
explaining in basic detail about the intent of the ~19 acres located at the NW Corner of 35th Avenue and
Carver Road; in the previous reference of concerns brought by neighbors, I find myself largely concerned
about this development.
“The proposed Carver Canyon PUD’s 61 residential lot subdivision will be below this land use
designation (i.e., 3.13 du/ac).” It sounds as though the proposed plan consisting of 61 residential lot
subdivision is more consistent with developments which would be located in Central Phoenix or closer
to the urban/suburban city locale, which, the volume of homes in the net area of 18.5319 acres the total
lot area is only 10.3543 acres for 61 homes. For Laveen, this is a concerning because of the large density
in a small area. While it holds true other local developments have similar lot/parcel sizes, these
subdivisions are also not consistent with the rich agrarian history that Laveen is striving to support.
Please use parcel viewer for Highland Estates at 20th Street and Highland, Wellington Place at 3rd Avenue
and Cambridge, and Campus Vista at 11th Avenue and Catalina. Each of those developments are R1-6,
however these lot sizes are larger than what is requested in the change for Carver Canyon. The lot
minimum width and depth is 55x110 which totals to 6,050 sq ft lot per dwelling, which does not blend in
with the existing development of the surrounding area. Parcel sizes in Campus Vista are as large as
~9,000 sq ft.
Parcel 300-15-135 is zoned as RU-43 and consists of 76,092 sq ft lot. This parcel is east of the
proposed Carver Canyon.
All parcels located on the east/southeast side of Carver and 35th are no less than an acre
(43,560 sq ft), and a max of 3 homes per acre doesn’t blend with the existing environment.
“The Laveen Southwest Growth Study also provides a framework for an overall multi-use trail system
which will help connect the community together as well as assets such as: parks/open space areas and
the South Mountain Preserve. The proposed Carver Canyon PUD will be in line with the General Plan and
the final development plan will provide a multi-use trail along the eastern perimeter of the proposed
subdivision (i.e., along 35th Avenue and Carver Road), which will connect up to future trails to be built
south…”
There is no guarantee in this statement a plan a multi-use trail. I’m concerned that if a scope
change occurs as this progresses, this proposed trail would meander through the proposed
development, thereby disallowing community members outside of Carver Canyon use of the
said pathways should the Carver Canyon Development be considered a Private or Gated
Community.
It has also been my experience, in surrounding mass-residential developments (Such as Dobbins
Point) the HOA has posted signage conveying the area is exclusive to residents only. Again, if
scope changes and the trail is moved through the development AND the development is an
exclusive gated community, then this will go against connecting the community together as
outlined in the Laveen Village Character Plan.
Due to the uncertainty of vehicle drivers driving on 35th Avenue and going over the ‘hill’ to segue
onto Carver road I would be very concerned to be walking the trail outlined under exhibit ‘A’ –
Page 20 due to the risk of a careless driver.
“Examples of Southwest Contemporary Architecture*”: The designs listed on page 14 does not resonate
with the agricultural, farming and ranch-styles Laveen should continue to retain. A classic example
Laveen has historically fought for is the farm and ranch style mandated on the local Walmart at 35th
Avenue south of Southern which is not aligned with the generic Walmart Supercenters we’ve come to
know. Continuing a Ranch and Farm Style would most certainly make a subdivision like this more of a
point of pride as the proposal conveys.
Page 17, Section H: “The proposed Carver Canyon PUD’s is lower than the original rezoning (i.e., 61
residential lots vs. 99 residential lots previously approved) and will not impact the level-of-service in the
area (i.e., 35th Avenue and Carver Road). As such, the proposed 61 residential lots will have no impact
to traffic. Moreover, improvements to the ½-streets will be completed with this residential community
and will help to enhance vehicular flow. “
61 homes, times generally two vehicles per single family home = approximately 122
additional vehicles (or more) driving on 35th Avenue/Carver Road as a thoroughfare. The
hill changing from 35th Avenue to Carver Road and the curvature of the road can be a
dangerous road. Especially at night and when intoxicated drivers are present or drivers
who may not pay attention (e.g. Texting) – which is common in this area.
The four-way stop in the morning and evening commute at 35th Avenue and Dobbins is
also chaotic ‘today’ (not factoring in the Pandemic). Oftentimes drivers do not
comprehend road rules as it comes to vehicles in all four directions at a 4-way stop, and
the backup of traffic on Northbound 35th Avenue at Dobbins Road, on East and
Westbound Dobbins Road is stressful today to existing residents.
I have also personally witnessed a complete disregard to the four-way stop at Dobbins
Road and 35th Avenue – for traffic coming from Carver Road at hours in the late evening
and early morning. I have seen drivers going through without stopping as the driver was
checking for social media updates.
The above taken into consideration, with an additional 122 vehicles using the road, there most definitely
will be an impact and I strongly recommend the City Of Phoenix Transportation Department revisit and
complete an updated analysis/study as much as changed in the area since 2007. The currently existing
residents will not respond well to more vehicles traveling this route.
I certainly realize that Developers, Engineers, Land Owners, Planners and Graphic Artists may have high-
stakes in terms of financial incentives to pack homes tightly to generate highest revenue as possible (as
a capitalist our goal is financial success – I get that), though Laveen is not suited towards this. I do not
support the change from R1-8 to PUD and in fact believe the number of units/overall density should be
decreased closer to two (2) units per acre. Or less. Laveen’s focus going forward should be to restrict
future development to stand and closely align with its farming and agricultural history. A development
with 61 homes contained in less than 19 acres does not honor that heritage.
I appreciate you taking the time listening to me voice my concerns as the community at large is very
charged to increased development – especially those who had built homes here as early at the 1950’s,
60’s and 70’s, when some of these residents can remember a time when they could see the Milky Way
in the nighttime skies of Laveen nearly until the 1990’s.
Thank you kindly and sincerely yours,
Benjamin Fisher
4745 W. Piedmont Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339
benjamin_fisher@hotmail.com
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Elizabeth Banta <ebanta3938@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, December 11, 2020 7:55 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
PUD case Z-60-20-8
Good morning. This email is regarding PUD case Z-60-20-8. I wish to register to speak at the meeting
scheduled for Dec 14th at 6:30 p.m.. (or to be able to donate my time to another speaker). I urge the City of
Phoenix including the Laveen Planning Village to treat our community like the precious place that it is. Yes,
property owners' rights are important - including those of people who already live in the community. Please
work to preserve an area that is truly unique to the Valley. Drive in the area if you have not already done so.
You have power to make a real difference through your actions. Thank you for your consideration. My
feedback is consistent with many of my neighbors, as follows. I am grateful to my neighbors who have spent
countless hours following the nuances of the developer's efforts, as well as responses of city decision-makers
and staff, and together we have provided input and recommendations. Consider the following:
The number of lots and the density is still too high
The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area.
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down‐zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous inferior site plan
from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8.
The applicant continues to ignore the community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is compatible
with the area, and is an executable site plan with conforming stipulations.
The applicant has not incorporated the stipulations from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8 which they previously agreed
to.
The applicant has not incorporated the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by Planning Staff
and the LVPC.
The proposed site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not addressed how to treat the escarpment.
The applicant has not addressed safety issues for ingress and egress on 35th Avenue.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space.
The applicant has not provided adequate landscaping buffers.
The applicant has failed to recognize or plan for drainage issues and how storm water will be captured on site.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank check or
“framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best interest of the
neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a far superior and compatible plan than
anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Irma Cazarez <irmacazarez@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, December 11, 2020 6:49 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Agenda Item 5, case Z-60-20-8
Good evening,
In reference to the above mentioned PUD application, I’d like to express my opposition to it. The proposed
development is non‐confirming with the surrounding area. The community in general is opposed to this and we simply
hope that the applicant realizes that the community is not opposed to the right kind of development. Unfortunately,
the development the applicant proposes is not something we can support.
‐‐
Thank you,
Irma Cazarez
phone: (602)363-5381
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Kim Henshaw <Kim.Henshaw@exelaonline.com>
Sent:
Friday, December 11, 2020 8:07 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Request to speak at Dec 14 LVPC Meeting 12/14, Agenda Item 5, case z-60-20-8
I want to speak on behalf of my community about the development planned for the Quarry.
I have been a resident in this area for 10 years (11706 S.42nd Ave). We moved here from Ahwatukee.
Laveen has been a hidden gem for many years, but as you are aware it is now growing rapidly.
All of the cotton fields, corn fields, and other agricultural interests are being replaced with rapid build, compact single
family residence developments.
What is important about the quarry area is the size and spread of the lots/houses and its protection from the
surrounding foothill/mountain, thus retaining that rural feel in the surrounding area.
While the freeway and housing growth is important, it is also necessary that Laveen retain some sense of its unique
community. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish us from the spread of Mesa and other suburban Phoenix areas.
This is an important pocket of Laveen, one of the few places where wildlife (already pushed away from freeway and
housing developments) can reside on Carver Mountain & South Mountain.
Those who purchased property and have lived for some time need some protection from the City to honor the plans and
guidelines previously in place for this area, which is to prevent the density the developer is currently seeking.
The area of 35th and Carver has also become more dangerous due to the increase in traffic. There are rollover several
times a year on Carver hill next to the Quarry (35th ave) and also several times a year cars end up in the canal.
Although some improvements seem to be in the works for 35th ave, increasing the traffic with another dense
development creates additional risks and more traffic on Carver Rd. which is not designed to support it.
I ask the City of Phoenix to consider that part of Phoenix’s identity is having surrounding communities with their own
‘feel’ and attractions. Keeping Laveen ‘Laveen’ is also in the best interest of the City of Phoenix.
Our identity is drawing growth, people, amenities, to this area, but we cannot forsake what made this community
unique.
Thank you for considering my comments and I look forward to sharing my perspective as a long term resident of this
area.
Kim Henshaw
Director, Client Services
1820 E Sky Harbor Cir South Ste. 150 • Phoenix, AZ 85034
O: +1 602.635.5858 • M: +1 480.600.7006
exelatech.com • About EXELA • Instagram • LinkedIn
Please consider the environment before printing or forwarding this email. If you do print this email, please recycle the
paper.
This email message may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. It is intended only for the use of
2
the intended recipient(s). If you have received it in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and then
delete this email message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in this email
message to or by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Exela
Technologies, Inc. or its subsidiaries.
This email does not constitute an agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means and does not create any
legally binding contract or enforceable obligation against Exela in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>
Sent:
Friday, December 11, 2020 7:27 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Cc:
Steven Dougherty
Subject:
Dec. 14 LVPC meeting Agenda Item 5, Case Z-60-20-8
Hello Sofia,
I believe I’m registered now
Submitting my comment:
Dec. 14 LVPC meeting Agenda Item 5, Case Z‐60‐20‐8
OPPOSED
Feedback on the new PUD case Z‐60‐20‐8 for use:
The number of lots and the density is still too high
The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area.
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down‐zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous inferior site
plan from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8.
The applicant continues to ignore the community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is
compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan with conforming stipulations.
The applicant has not incorporated the stipulations from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8 which they previously
agreed to.
The applicant has not incorporated the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by Planning
Staff and the LVPC.
The proposed site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not addressed how to treat the escarpment.
The applicant has not addressed safety issues for ingress and egress on 35th Avenue.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space.
The applicant has not provided adequate landscaping buffers.
The applicant has failed to recognize or plan for drainage issues and how storm water will be captured on site.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank check or
“framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best interest of
the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a far superior and compatible
plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.
Sincerely,
Steven Dougherty
Steven@StevenDougherty.com
480‐430‐6130 Cell
2
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner. The use or any action or reliance
on the communication is strictly prohibited by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‐2521.
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 14, 2020 1:45 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Re: Dec. 14 LVPC Meeting - Agenda Item 5, Case Z-60-20-8
Sofia,
Unfortunately I have a family obligation this evening that won't allow me to be present for the meeting.
I have written my statement below. Could you please have this read during my speaking time and
submit it on record related to this case?
Thank you.
My wife and I have lived all over the Valley: from Peoria to Tempe, from Arcadia to central Phoenix.
We found our home in Laveen because of its rural living with urban access; with spacious lots, an
abundance of outdoor activity (hiking trails, horses, ranches), minimal light and noise pollution for star
gazing, and picturesque views all within a reasonable commute to downtown work, this was the
perfect place for us and to find people like us. Three things were especially attractive about making
this a longterm placement for us: (1) the uniquely Arizona landscape, (2) the potential for growth, (3)
the apparent commitment by the community to preserve its uniqueness as it grows.
I encourage the committee to not take this application at face value, but truly understand the details of
the proposal and the process behind pursuing this PUD application. This is not a unique, creative
proposal requiring a special zoning code. It's a rebranding of an incompatible proposal. The applicant
makes many attempts to appear to be a good neighbor, but their actions do not align. Consider the
negotiation process from the neighbor's point of view, or the references within the proposal to the
Southwest Laveen Growth Study. The references cherry pick low-hanging fruit like building materials
and perimeter walls to portray compliance, but ignore higher priority issues and the larger picture. I
would like to call your attention to Page 13 of the study, which emphasizes the need for a buffer
between existing lower-density lots and new subdivisions with the more standard 2-5 du/ac and the
specific mention of this location. Quoting from the Growth Study: "The southern portion of the area,
from the Carver Foothills to South Mountain Park, will be very low density housing in a Sonoran
Desert environment." This is far from "very low density" and eliminates any opportunity for a "buffer"
between densities.
As mentioned, my wife and I are excited about the growth coming to Laveen as well as the intention
to protect its unique rural way of life, which is why we support the more-than-compromised proposal
from the community that includes the 46 lots at R1-18 zoning. We are not against growth. We are not
against development. We are excited about welcoming more like-minded individuals and families to
the community. We are also supportive of an overall plan that protects the unique qualities of this
area that attracted us here in the first place.
Thank you,
Bret Burchard
2
11244 S 35th Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339
On Thursday, December 10, 2020, 10:12:33 AM MST, Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote:
Good morning Bret,
You have been registered to speak at the December 14 Laveen Village Planning Committee meeting. Please use the link
on the agenda to access the meeting. Staff will unmute you when the Chair calls your name. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:34 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Dec. 14 LVPC Meeting - Agenda Item 5, Case Z-60-20-8
Sofia,
I would like to register for the upcoming Dec. 14 LVPC meeting, specifically related to Agenda Item 5,
Case Z-60-20-8.
3
Thank you,
Bret Burchard
11244 S 35th Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
D in AZ <darcy3535@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 14, 2020 8:51 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
For the Record of Z-60-20-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
In follow up to the LVPC meeting on 12/14/20, I'd like to give you my notes for the record of Z‐60‐20‐8.
Our family lives within walking distance of this property. The history with this lot has put this community through a roller
coaster.
As you know Laveen is growing by leaps and bounds. Fields and farms that defined Laveen are quickly disappearing and
housing developments are everywhere. BUT this part of Laveen is different from the rest. I hope you are familiar with
the south side of Carver Mtn. Most lots are 1 house per acre (or more). We moved here to get away from the influx of
huge housing developments and consider it our escape from the city.
We are dealing with this applicant already with the city council. The applicant has used multiple continuances and delay
tactics to discourage the neighbors from continually opposing this. The city council refuses to enforce a required zone
reversion per Ordinance‐5020 from 2007, but aside from the council ignoring this, the community HAS tried to propose
compatible development for this lot to try and meet in the middle, but the applicant doesn’t seem to want to abide with
the community’s wishes‐community, meaning the people that have to live next door and drive by this development
forever.
It is not compatible to bring the number of homes to this lot that the applicant has put forth. It will change the feel of
our neighborhood drastically. BUT not only is this a development issue, it also is a safety issue. I wish I had the statistics
of how many accidents happen around the bend, on the hill on 35th, how many cars have hit poles causing power
outages, how many have gone through the William’s fence or how many cars end up IN the canal along Carver. It’s a lot
more than you realize. High density zoning will only make this stretch more dangerous.
If any of you lived on this south side of the quarry, YOU would be fighting to oppose the type of density that this
applicant is proposing FOR development AND safety reasons. I hope the Laveen Community Council will understand why
we oppose this and agree with us rather than the applicant that wants to just profit from our unique area of Laveen.
Darcy Meyer
480‐332‐4120
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Cyd Manning <SweetBeat@q.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, December 16, 2020 5:30 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Feedback regarding LVPC Meeting Dec. 14, 2020 and Discussion on Case Z-60-20-8
Attachments:
Community Site Plan (PHO-1-19) Z165-06-7 (8) Site Plan Dated 062420.pdf
Importance:
High
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Sofia,
Please forward this email and attachments to all members of the Laveen Village Planning Committee (LVPC) and also
include this in the subject case file. I’d appreciate confirmation both actions have been completed.
Thank you very much and all my best to you and your family for a wonderful holiday.
Best regards,
Cyd
Cyd Manning
sweetbeat@q.com
480‐747‐0769
LVPC Members,
Thank you for your attention to community concerns regarding PUD Case Z‐60‐20‐8 at Monday’s LVPC meeting. I also
appreciate your questions during the meeting and the request from Vice Chair Glass to provide the community’s
proposal for the committee’s review and consideration.
The community proposal is compatible land use with the adjacent and surrounding area. Our plan requires a zoning
change on the 20 acre parcel from R1‐8 to R1‐18. Our site plan is executable and utilizes the topography of the site,
preserves views and open space, and is specifically at the upper end of the R1‐18 zoning range to allow the applicant to
have the most lots possible in that R1‐18 zoning district. Conforming stipulation modifications for inclusion with our
plan are:
Stipulation 1: THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED
JUNE 24, 2020, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:
A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM 35TH AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE
WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY
LINE SHALL PROVIDE A VEHICULAR CONNECTION TO, FOR AND INTEGRATED WITH BOTH THE 20‐
ACRE AND 40‐ACRE PORTIONS OF THE PARCEL.
Stipulation 2: CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE 20‐ACRE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL
2
PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Stipulation 4: DEVELOPMENT OF THE 40‐ACRE R1‐18 PORTION OF THE SITE SHALL NOT EXCEED 22 LOTS.
Stipulation 5: DEVELOPMENT OF THE 20‐ACRE CURRENT R1‐8 PORTION OF THE SITE SHALL NOT EXCEED A
DENSITY OF 46 LOTS AND SHALL BE REZONED TO R1‐18.
Stipulation 6. THE 20‐ACRE DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN SPACE, OF WHICH A
MINIMUM OF 12%, SHALL BE USABLE OPEN SPACE, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Stipulation 15: THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A MULTI‐USE TRAIL EASEMENT AND CONSTRUCT A MULTI‐USE
TRAIL PER ADOPTED STANDARDS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF CARVER ROAD AND ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
35TH AVENUE, AS APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
Stipulation 35: A MINIMUM OF THREE TERRACED BERMS WITH 2:1 FILL SLOPES SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG
THE FULL LENGTH OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE BASE. THE TERRACES SHALL BE A MIMIMUM HEIGHT OF 8 FEET
TALL AND SHALL BE PLANTED WITH A STAGGERED COMBINATION OF 2‐INCH AND 4‐INCH CALIPER, DROUGHT
RESISTANT, DECIDUOUS TREES AT 25 FEET ON CENTER OR IN EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS TO CENTER, AS
APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
Stipulations 43 & 44: Require Staff to update these stipulations to include notification to all individuals on
record who have written and/or attended public meetings regarding this case
All other stipulations, including Stipulation 19, to remain unchanged
A conforming site plan dated June 24, 2020 is attached
I believe a few LVPC members are new to this parcel, the issues and the multiple cases, so I’ve also taken the
opportunity to provide an executive summary and history in addition to the community proposal. FYI, the entire City
Council has received the below information, other than the updates I’ve provided regarding the new PUD case. Thank
you in advance for your careful review and consideration of the materials. If you have follow‐on questions, please let
me know.
Thank you for serving the community as LVPC members and I wish you and your families a very safe and enjoyable
holiday season.
Best regards,
Cyd Manning
Executive Summary:
The original case in 2006/2007 was very contentious due to the high‐density development plan in an area that for 25+
years has been planned to be 0‐1 homes per acre. This incompatible land use of speculative spot zoning was pushed
through regardless of community involvement. The large outpouring of community opposition remains today with the
current case/PHO application PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8. The applicant/owner’s revised proposal of 63 (recently 61) lots
on the 20‐acre portion with no zoning district change from R1‐8 is still incompatible land use at 3 times the density of
adjacent and nearby parcels zoned at R1‐18 and RE‐35. They also have an active Proposition 207 waiver on file that
waives their right to sue the City of Phoenix.
As you heard with the PUD case on Monday, the issue has been and is about zoning and density.
3
The community has continued to propose a compatible land use alternative (described above) with a conforming site
plan and applicable stipulation revisions, along with a zoning district change, that is supported by Councilmember
Garcia. This option essentially “splits the baby” with the community moving up two zoning districts and the
applicant/owner moving down two zoning districts. Our proposal is a true middle ground and “cuts to the chase” given
the City’s inability to codify the zoning reversion required in 2011, along with the realignment of the General Plan, to 0‐1
du/a.
You can clearly see by the green arrows in the below graph that the community has compromised significantly more
than the applicant.
Note ‐ The 20‐acre and 40‐acre parcels are zoned separately and cannot be calculated together
4
The PHO case was continued twice (July 1st and August 26th) at the applicants request to review and respond to the
community proposal. The applicant contacted us 6+ weeks after the July 1st continuance and had not performed a
detailed review/analysis of our plan. After the August 26th continuance, the applicant reached out after 3 weeks to
propose zero zoning change and a token reduction of 2 lots (63 to 61). The PHO case was set for the Council agenda on
October 7 and ended up being continued for a third time. In the motion to continue, Councilmember Garcia stated his
motion was “to continue this item for 6 months to the April formal meeting to allow the property owner to file a zoning
case to down‐zone the property”. The PHO case is scheduled to be heard at the April 7, 2021 City Council formal
meeting.
Now the applicant has filed a second and separate case for a PUD, Z‐60‐20‐8. This new PUD case is not a down‐zoning
(e.g. reduction in zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the PHO case.
Case History Details:
We are residents of all social and economic backgrounds who have worked hard for our homes and love our
community. Even those neighbors with occupations who stand to benefit from more development (e.g. realtors,
insurance agents, civil engineers, contractors, etc.) have been and are opposed to this high‐density development
because it does not fit the area. We are not against change, development, growth or affordable housing. We
are for responsible development that is compatible with the area. We have supported high‐density
developments, including several cases in the last year+, because they fit the area being proposed.
The video of our area is only 42 seconds long and can be played directly from this secure Dropbox
link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfmz2e6htiasqd/Laveen.mp4?dl=0 [dropbox.com]
The original GPA and Zoning cases in 2006/2007 were very contentious and lasted almost 1 year (GPA‐LV‐2‐06‐7
and Z‐165‐06‐7)
o
Owner/applicant proposed:
GPA 5‐10 du/a from 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space
R1‐18, 40 acres, 22 lots at .56 du/a
R2, 20 acres, 136 multi‐family units at 6.8 du/a
o
Significant community opposition
200+ community members petitioned in opposition; LVPC & LCRD unanimously opposed; GPA
and Zoning cases appealed
District 7 candidates Pastor & Nowakowski opposed; Councilmembers Johnson and Simplot
voted in opposition
o
Claims of blight, hazardous material, etc. were all proved to be false
o
To help protect the neighborhood from speculative spot zoning and incompatible high‐density
development, then Mayor Gordon insisted on including a time stipulation (Stipulation 19) for zoning
reversion if development did not occur in 48 months.
o
Ultimately the 40‐acre portion at R1‐18 and 22 lots, the 20‐acre portion at R1‐8 with 99 detached villas,
and Stipulation 19 for zoning reversion was approved and codified in Ordinance G‐5020
The City did follow process in July 2008 and codified a GPA alignment on this parcel
o
The Planning Director letter in the case file states “The Laveen Village Planning Committee initiated GPA‐
LV‐1‐08‐7 to create consistency between the Land Use Map and the approved R1‐8 zoning and to avoid
creating a precedent for higher densities on the surrounding parcels.”
The current PHO case is equally contentious with the applicant/owner ignoring the community’s input until
encouraged by Councilmember Garcia
o
The applicant continues to ignore, or claims to be surprised, that zoning is and has been the issue for 13
years
o
Significant community opposition remains:
140+ community members in opposition at LVPC; 40+ community members in opposition at
PHO; 70+ community members in opposition at Planning Commission
LVPC & LCRD unanimously opposed; significantly over 250+ community letters submitted in
opposition to date
PHO and Planning Commission recommendations were appealed
5
Councilmember Garcia and other community leaders are opposed to the applicant’s plan
o
The City has refused to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 Stipulation 19 which states “That approval shall be
conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval of this
change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this
stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of
building walls on site.”.
City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was
set to revert to S‐1 as of 2011.
To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to
revert the zoning as required, despite multiple requests to do so.
o
Technically the zoning classification for this property has been S‐1 since late 2011, but has yet to be
codified by the City per Ordinance G‐5020
o
Technically the General Plan is 0‐1 du/a, NOT 3.5 to 5, and the City is also obligated to codify that
designation
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Vializ, Lisa <Lisa.Vializ@Honeywell.com>
Sent:
Thursday, December 17, 2020 11:52 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Feedback regarding LVPC Meeting Dec. 14, 2020 and Discussion on Case Z-60-20-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Sofia,
I am opposed to the PUD on this property, as the reversion is still an active and open issue.
We have been meeting with the Applicant’s council and discussing this case for almost 12 months now. The
Community has remained consistent.. the issue here is the zoning WHICH equals density and the DENSITY
proposed is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with this area. It is a mere shortcut to accomplish a plan that is
ACTUALLY worse than WHAT we have been opposing….a ‘blank check’ for the Applicant to do whatever they
want.
TO SUMMARIZE:
It does NOT incorporate all of the stipulations from the PHO‐ that they previously agreed to.
It does NOT incorporate all of the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by Planning
Staff and the LVPC.
As a reminder, The LVPC unanimously opposed this case.
The surrounding density’s referenced in Mr. Gilbert’s presentation are inaccurate. We have: S‐1, R‐43,
and R‐18 in the surrounding area. As we all know the density REDUCES as we move south toward
South Mountain. We are asking for comparable lot sizes to the surrounding area and not what is 2
miles NORTH to Dobbins.
60x120 lots may sound good, but NOT in an area with ½ to 1 acre lots. Density and zoning is the
issue.
The density reduction number referenced in Mr. Gilbert’s presentation is NOT correct since he
combined the 40 and 20 acre parcels to bolster his density reduction number (fake math) and this case
is ONLY addressing the 20A parcel.
The Applicant is flipping the property. This entire time they stated they were building on the property
and finally just admitted they are going to flip it.
Councilman Garcia has reiterated time and time again he would NOT support a density or zoning at
this level (R1‐8 nor R1‐10). He asked us to compromise and we did; we agreed to R1‐18 at 46 lots
AND COUNCILMAN SUPPORTS THIS ZONING LEVEL AND LOT COUNT.
Again this sets a very bad precedent for this area and all of the property around South Mountain
currently zoned S‐1. We need to maintain the low density in this area. There are plenty of
properties/land near the freeway and areas North of Baseline where higher density housing is
appropriate but it is not appropriate in and around the foothills.
We should allow the original case to continue on thru City council instead of ramrodding thru a PUD
which is NOT in the best interest of the community.
2
Please vote to deny this PUD. The neighbors have been speaking loud and clear for a year (all the way back to
2007 actually). High density has its place but not in this area at any price point.
Thank you,
Lisa Vializ
8921 S 53rd Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
John Knight <john.knight@aircomm.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 28, 2020 10:08 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Re: Laveen Planning Meeting Dec 11
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
SoIia, thank you so much for the update. I am truly sorry to have missed. Looking forward to the next steps. As we
invested in this area over 18 years ago, we have seen the same type of custom quality building continue as others look
for a place of open space. That was what the City and County told us. We would love to have you out to our area and
our home so you gt the feel of how the new Developer's requests are Polar Opposites to what is here today. It is truly
hard to understand unless you come through here with a resident. Please think about this. I know that you must
remain neutral, but it will help you understand our passion to continue this. The builders hope we get tired of all these
meetings. and hope to give up. When you come South over the Carver Mountains, you see an area close to Paradise
Valley or even Tucson. Most people don't know this area is here. Please let me know if that would help Happy New
Year
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 8:51 AM Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote:
Good morning John,
The meeting went well – a good number of community members attended and expressed their opposition to
the case. It has not yet been scheduled to come back to the VPC for a vote, as the applicant is still working
with us on revisions to their development narrative. Please let me know if you have any questions.
I hope your health is better, and have a wonderful holiday!
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
2
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: John Knight <john.knight@aircomm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:47 AM
To: SweetBeat@q.com; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Elizabeth Banta <ebanta3938@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Laveen Planning Meeting Dec 11
Sofia, I apologize for missing last night. I had some health issues. How did it go? I will try and attend
Thursday" Thank you all very much.
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
John Knight
VP Integrated Solutions
P: (602) 237-4915
C: (602) 549-1885
E: john.knight@aircomm.com
W: www.aircomm.com [cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
3
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:57 AM Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote:
Good morning John,
You have been registered to speak at the December 14 Laveen Village Planning Committee meeting. Please
use the link on the agenda to access the meeting. Staff will unmute you when the Chair calls your name. Let
me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: John Knight <john.knight@aircomm.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:28 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; John Hampton Knight <john.knight@synergydatascience.com>;
Dr. Dean G. Gordy Fairchild, Ph.D. <founder@synergydatascience.com>; SweetBeat@q.com
Subject: Laveen Planning Meeting Dec 11
Sofia, I hope this finds you well. I am requesting to speak at the meeting.
4
1. Average Lot Size South of Carver Hills 51st Avenue to 19th Avenue
2. Average Size of house in the same area?
3. Average Size of Open Area for each parcel?
4. Average Price of home in this area?
5. Number of Acre+ Lots compared to less than Acre lots?
6. Do you have pictures of this area during Monsoon, Hurricane or large rain seasons?
7. What is the breakdown of Architectural design of homes today is this area?
8. Compare the above to the proposal before us please.
9. How does your product compare to the area surrounding your proposed development versus what we have seen
on 51st Avenue.
10. What is the average devaluation of this area when you build small homes compared to larger, custom acre homes?
11. Why have you not looked at the area and provided a product commensurate with the surroundings?
12. What makes your proposed design unique and desirable? .
13. How do we protect the integrity of the existing homeowners who bought in to the Laveen plan of the 1990's and
invested in this area? Why should you be granted an exception?
Those are things that we all want to know. We will try and pull the statistics by Monday. ty
‐‐
5
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
John Knight
VP Integrated Solutions
P: (602) 237-4915
C: (602) 549-1885
E: john.knight@aircomm.com
W: www.aircomm.com [cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
‐‐
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
John Knight
VP Integrated Solutions
P: (602) 237-4915
C: (602) 549-1885
E: john.knight@aircomm.com
W: www.aircomm.com [cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
6
[cloud.letsignit.com]
‐‐
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
[cloud.letsignit.com]
John Knight
VP Integrated Solutions
P: (602) 237-4915
C: (602) 549-1885
E: john.knight@aircomm.com
W: www.aircomm.com [cloud.letsignit.com]
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
[cloud.letsignit.com]
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
[cloud.letsignit.com]
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
chris johns <christopher.1.johns@outlook.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 4, 2021 8:47 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Fw: PUD case Z-60-20-8.
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hello Sofia,
I am writing to express my concern about PUD case Z‐60‐20‐8. The proposed 61 lots with more than 3 dwelling units per
acre is completely incompatible with the area. The number of lots and density is far too high and does not fit with the
surrounding area between the Carver foothills and south mountain park. The applicant continues to ignore the
community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan
with conforming stipulations.
In addition, the neighborhood community members have voiced the following concerns with this case:
Feedback on the new PUD case Z-60-20-8 for use:
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down-zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous
inferior site plan from case PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7/8.
The applicant has not incorporated the stipulations from case PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7/8 which they
previously agreed to.
The applicant has not incorporated the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by
Planning Staff and the LVPC.
The proposed site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not addressed how to treat the escarpment.
The applicant has not addressed safety issues for ingress and egress on 35th Avenue.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space.
The applicant has not provided adequate landscaping buffers.
The applicant has failed to recognize or plan for drainage issues and how storm water will be captured on
site.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank check
or “framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best interest
of the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a far superior and
compatible plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.20-8
Chris Johns
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Sarah VanSchyndel <sarah.vanschyndel@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 4, 2021 11:42 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
PUD case Z-60-20-8.
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hello Sofia,
I am writing to express my concern about PUD case Z‐60‐20‐8. The proposed 61 lots with more than 3 dwelling units per
acre is completely incompatible with the area. The number of lots and density is far too high and does not fit with the
surrounding area between the Carver foothills and south mountain park. The applicant continues to ignore the
community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan
with conforming stipulations.
In addition, the neighborhood community members have voiced the following concerns with this case:
Feedback on the new PUD case Z-60-20-8 for use:
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down-zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous
inferior site plan from case PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7/8.
The applicant has not incorporated the stipulations from case PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7/8 which they
previously agreed to.
The applicant has not incorporated the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by
Planning Staff and the LVPC.
The proposed site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not addressed how to treat the escarpment.
The applicant has not addressed safety issues for ingress and egress on 35th Avenue.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space.
The applicant has not provided adequate landscaping buffers.
The applicant has failed to recognize or plan for drainage issues and how storm water will be captured on
site.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank check
or “framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best interest
of the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a far superior and
compatible plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.20-8
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Donna Schober <donna.schober@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:56 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
PUD case Z-60-20-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear Ms. Mastikhina. My husband and I have lived in Laveen for 22+ years. We live near the proposed
development (PUD case Z‐60‐20‐8) that is the subject of various meetings. We are in strong opposition to
PUD case Z‐60‐20‐8. We will list only a few of the reasons we oppose this case.
Chief among our reasons is the high number of lots for this area and the density is much too high for this
area. The number of lots is completely incompatible with this area. The applicant has ignored our
community and our own proposal of fewer lots and less density which is more compatible with the area and
could be implemented rather quickly with some conforming stipulations.
The applicant has not worked with the site, has not addressed traffic safety issues, has not provided
adequate open space, adequate landscaping buffers, failed to plan for drainage issues and storm water. These
are items of importance to our neighborhood. We do not feel it is appropriate to give this developer a blank
check through approval of this case.
As you may already know this is the second and a separate case filed by the developer for this same area. The
neighborhood opposes both cases (PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8 is the other case) and has been fighting for a
responsible development in the area for more than 10 years.
Please visit our neighborhood. You will see this is a special area of Laveen and it deserves a far superior plan
than anything this particular applicant has proposed.
Sincerely,
Donna J. Schober
Marvin A. Sondag
10840 S 30th Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339
602‐237‐4887
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
EMAIL TEAM <garyinlaveen@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:56 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
zoning meetings
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Sofie,
I am against the proposals: PUD Z-60-20-8 and PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7/8.
Sincerely
Gary Jordan
3603 W. Shawnee Dr.
Laveen, Az 85339
602-237-4727
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Laura Murphy <lmurphy@acswinc.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 6, 2021 5:54 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
PUD CASE Z-60-20-8 Laveen Carver Mountain
Importance:
High
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Good afternoon Sofia,
I am writing in to oppose the PUD case for the Quarry/Carver Mountain case. This also includes an opposition to case
PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐7/8.
The Hidden Valley residents living in Laveen chose to come here for a reason. To get out of the City. We did not want
HOA’s. We wanted space and to see the Milky Way! We have NO streetlights and we like it that way. We have less
traffic, although with the new Loop 202 in our backyard, the traffic has doubled on our residential streets and it is now
hard to see the Milky Way due to the freeway lights. Plus people our using our residential streets as a cut through to get
to 35th Ave and Baseline faster or dodging the law by coming from the Casino drunk. We now even have semi’s using
our residential streets as a cut through. The drunk drivers just end up in the irrigation ditch. This happens quite a lot. Or
they hit a power pole and wipe us out of power for hours on end. We do not need to increase the traffic with high
density housing.
We do not have any housing projects in our neighborhood. We do not need to start now. The is a mountain side
property. This is not welcome. In fact, it would deface the beauty. This is a special and tranquil place to live and raise a
family. Allowing a high density housing project will bring crime. The beauty will be erased.
We have lost most of our cotton farms along 51st Ave due to high density housing. This was hard enough to bear a
couple of years ago. It is so sad that we are losing farmers in our metro area. If they can relocate due to costs they are
struggling on where to move to without the costs going out of this world. Some, have decided not to farm
anymore. This is not good for our economy.
We want to preserve our mountains, not destroy them. I am not opposed to custom homes. But, it should remain R‐18
with one house per acre. And no more!
The following is the feedback on the new PUD case Z‐60‐20‐8.
1. The number of lots and the density is still too high
2. The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area.
3. This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down‐zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous
inferior site plan from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8.
4. The applicant continues to ignore the community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is
compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan with conforming stipulations.
5. The applicant has not incorporated the stipulations from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8 which they
previously agreed to.
6. The applicant has not incorporated the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by
Planning Staff and the LVPC.
2
7. The proposed site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
8. The applicant has not addressed how to treat the escarpment.
9. The applicant has not addressed safety issues for ingress and egress on 35th Avenue.
10. The applicant has not provided adequate open space.
11. The applicant has not provided adequate landscaping buffers.
12. The applicant has failed to recognize or plan for drainage issues and how storm water will be captured
on site.
13. A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank
check or “framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in
the best interest of the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a
far superior and compatible plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.
We do not want high density in our neighborhood. We do not want additional traffic that is associated with a dense
housing project. We do not want HOA’s. We do not want perimeter fencing.
We want our voices heard and recognized. We want peace and quiet.
Please support the Hidden Valley residents.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns and I do hope you will take this into consideration when the time
comes to vote.
Sincerely,
Laura A Murphy
4824 W. Estrella Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339
602‐318‐3442
Laura "Murph" Murphy | Controller
2430 W. Mission Ln., Ste. 1, Phoenix, AZ 85021
lmurphy@acswinc.com P: 480.664.3185 ext 11 C: 602.318.3442
Please visit us at www.acswinc.com [acswinc.com] and www.icsfabs.com
[icsfabs.com]
[facebook.com]
[linkedin.com]
[instagram.com] [instagram.com]
[instagram.com] [youtube.com] [pinterest.com] [instagram.com].
This communication (including any attachments) contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It
is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any
distribution, copying, or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and then destroy any copies of it.
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Benjamin Meyer <ben.meyer3456@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 6, 2021 8:36 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
PUD Z-60-20-8 Opposition
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
1/6/21
Re: For the Record of PUD (Z‐60‐20‐8)
Dear Sirs,
It is not compatible to bring the number of homes to this lot that the applicant has put forth. It will change the feel of
our neighborhood drastically and will decrease our property values. It is not right for our area and we feel very strongly
about this.
This is also a safety issue. The number of cars that will increase because of your high density zoning will only make this
stretch more dangerous.
If you lived on this south side of the quarry, YOU would be fighting to oppose 61 homes that this applicant is proposing
for development AND safety reasons. We oppose this and our neighbors oppose this.
Benjamin Meyer
35th & Carver
Laveen
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
D in AZ <darcy3535@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 6, 2021 7:28 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Quarry/Carver Mtn case PUD Z-60-20-8 for the record
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
I'd like to submit my feedback in in opposition of Z-60-20-8 for the record. Thank you.
To Jeremy and Mr. Gilbert,
As a neighbor of this property, I’d like to express my opposition to the high‐density development of Carver
Mountain. This isn’t a typical neighborhood to squeeze in a bunch of homes and put some covering on the rock to make
it feel natural. We get the natural look by looking out our window that doesn’t have a house right next to you. This
south side of Carver isn’t the typical area either. We moved here to be away from the city, where you see horses go up
and down the street, kids can play outside, it’s quiet and dark and the neighbors can keep to themselves when they
want to. Please don’t make this another subdivision that we are forced to pass by like all the others that have destroyed
the look and feel of Laveen. I can guarantee that you will find buyers for homes at an increased cost to have a bit of land
on them. People are paying big money for property because it’s hard to find nowadays
I also oppose this because it will bring in extra cars that belong to 61 houses that need to come into your lot. The curve
around Carver is way too dangerous. It is dangerous now, and no one even lives on this property. It cannot sustain an
increase of cars going in and out and around.
I urge that you side with the neighbors that actually live here and if you can find someone that actually wants this and
lives on this side of the mountain, please have them call me.
Darcy Meyer
35th & Carver
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Jane Craig <eddibtyboop@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, January 9, 2021 11:31 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
OPPOSE - New PUD case Z-60-20-8
Ms. Sofia Mastikhina,
I respectfully “OPPOSE” the PUD Case Z‐60‐20‐8, due to the following reasons listed below.
Please deny this request.
The number of lots and the density is still too high
The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area.
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down‐zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous
inferior site plan from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8.
The applicant continues to ignore the community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is
compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan with conforming stipulations.
The applicant has not incorporated the stipulations from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8 which they
previously agreed to.
The applicant has not incorporated the Laveen Residential Guidelines that have been sanctioned by
Planning Staff and the LVPC.
The proposed site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not addressed how to treat the escarpment.
The applicant has not addressed safety issues for ingress and egress on 35th Avenue.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space.
The applicant has not provided adequate landscaping buffers.
The applicant has failed to recognize or plan for drainage issues and how storm water will be captured
on site.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank
check or “framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in
the best interest of the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a
far superior and compatible plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.
Respectfully,
Jane Craig
2905 W Ceton Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339‐1744
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:29 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Quarry Case - Agenda Item #5 - PUD Z-60-20-8
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Laveen Village Planning Committee Members,
I ask that you please vote to deny the PUD application Z-60-20-8 that will come before you on
Monday, April 12, and move to support the community proposal of 46 lots and a conventional R1-18
zoning district for the Carver Mountain development.
This PUD case is a repackaging of the PHO case 1-19-Z-165-06-7(8) that you unanimously denied
previously. It is an attempt by the applicant to put lipstick on a pig and present it as a compromise.
But it still stinks and doesn't meet the primary concerns of the community.
The priority for the community is and always has been zoning and density. The applicant likes to
highlight that a PUD is more restrictive than a traditional zoning application and so should be more
attractive for the community, but the stipulations are primarily cosmetic in nature. The density of the
PUD is still incompatible with the surrounding area and the inferred zoning of their 61-lot plan sets an
irreversible precedent for future development.
The applicant also likes to cite the Laveen Southwest Growth Study to show they have listened to the
neighbors' concerns. Again, they cherry picked low hanging fruit that is mostly cosmetic. They fail to
address the part that states, "...the 0-1 designation was placed on properties adjacent to the Carver
Foothills and South Mountain Park. The latter parcels are appropriate for low density development
due to the topography of slopes and washes and the desert vegetation. The majority of the 0-2
property is to serve as a buffer between existing lower density lots and new subdivisions with the
more standard 2-5 du/a.”
Laveen is growing rapidly. That growth is one of the reasons my wife and I moved to this area just
over 2 years ago. We are not opposed to growth and development. We are, however, in favor of
responsible development that also preserves the unique rural lifestyle of this area that hardly exists
anywhere else in the Valley. We moved here looking for a lifestyle you can't find anywhere else.
Please, don't allow this beautiful corner of the Valley to turn into just another Gilbert, Chandler, or
cookie cutter American suburb.
Thank you for your continued support and representation of the community in this case.
Sincerely,
Bret Burchard
11244 S 35th Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Donis Canisales <cyrannn@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 6:36 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Letter of opposition
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Laveen Village Planning Committee Members,
PUD Z‐60‐20‐8 is a second and separate case at the NWC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road, known as the Quarry/Carver
Mountain. You, this Village, were supportive of the community and early last year were rightly unanimous in your denial
of the PHO version of this case, PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7(8). Do not let your unanimity or support of the community
wane. Unanimously reject this case and instead recommend approval of the community proposal for 46 lots and a
conventional R1‐18 zoning district.
The applicant likes to use the Laveen Southwest Growth Study in their narrative but fails to include the part stating“ the
0‐1 designation was placed on properties adjacent to the Carver Foothills and South Mountain Park. The latter parcels
are appropriate for low density development due to the topography of slopes and washes and the desert vegetation. The
majority of the 0‐2 property is to serve as a buffer between existing lower density lots and new subdivisions with the
more standard 2‐5 du/a.”
ALL the adjacent and nearby parcels, including the applicant’s 40‐acre site and the community R1‐18 proposal are 0‐2
du/a. Density and zoning are the issues here. Laveen lacks diversity of large lots and this is the area for them! The area
south of Carver Foothills is special and deserves so much better. A few of the many reasons to deny this PUD as filed
are:
The number of lots and the density is still too high
The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area.
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down‐zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous inferior site
plan from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8.
The applicant continues to ignore the community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is
compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan with conforming stipulations.
The proposed conventional flat‐land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers.
The PUD may look good on paper, but too many things are open‐ended in the application/narrative that states
the applicant MAY vs. SHALL or WILL. The stipulations in the PHO case are more stringent than the PUD.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank check or
“framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best interest of
the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a far superior and compatible
plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.
This PUD case is no significant improvement over the PHO case. The applicant is running both cases in parallel to mask
the structural and real issues of density and zoning and to “see what sticks”. Please support the community! Again,
deny this case as filed and instead recommend approval of the community proposal for 46 lots and a conventional R1‐18
zoning district.
2
Best regards,
Frank and Donis Canisales, Jr
11020 S 35th Ave Laveen Az 85339
Frank and Esperanza Canisales
11631 S 51st Ave Laveen Az 85339
Francisco, iii and Becca Canisales
9411 S 33rd Ave Laveen Az 86339
Antonio Canisales
2305 w tuckey lane, Phoenix Az 85015
Sent from my iPhone
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:42 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Cc:
Steven Dougherty
Subject:
Laveen Village Planning Committee Members,
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Laveen Village Planning Committee Members,
PUD Z‐60‐20‐8 is a second and separate case at the NWC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road, known as the Quarry/Carver
Mountain. You, this Village, were supportive of the community and early last year were rightly unanimous in your denial
of the PHO version of this case, PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7(8). Do not let your unanimity or support of the community
wane. Unanimously reject this case and instead recommend approval of the community proposal for 46 lots and a
conventional R1‐18 zoning district.
The applicant likes to use the Laveen Southwest Growth Study in their narrative but fails to include the part stating“ the
0‐1 designation was placed on properties adjacent to the Carver Foothills and South Mountain Park. The latter parcels
are appropriate for low density development due to the topography of slopes and washes and the desert vegetation. The
majority of the 0‐2 property is to serve as a buffer between existing lower density lots and new subdivisions with the
more standard 2‐5 du/a.”
ALL the adjacent and nearby parcels, including the applicant’s 40‐acre site and the community R1‐18 proposal are 0‐2
du/a. Density and zoning are the issues here. Laveen lacks diversity of large lots and this is the area for them! The area
south of Carver Foothills is special and deserves so much better. A few of the many reasons to deny this PUD as filed
are:
The number of lots and the density is still too high
The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area.
This plan is not a reduction in zoning (aka: down‐zoning). It is simply a repackaging of the previous inferior site
plan from case PHO‐1‐19‐Z‐165‐06‐7/8.
The applicant continues to ignore the community and our proposal of 46 lots at R1‐18 zoning, which is
compatible with the area, and is an executable site plan with conforming stipulations.
The proposed conventional flat‐land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site.
The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers.
The PUD may look good on paper, but too many things are open‐ended in the application/narrative that states
the applicant MAY vs. SHALL or WILL. The stipulations in the PHO case are more stringent than the PUD.
A PUD in general does not provide specific details or requirements of what will be built. This blank check or
“framework of development standards” is inferior to a conventional zoning case and is not in the best interest of
the neighborhood or broader Laveen Village. This special area of Laveen deserves a far superior and compatible
plan than anything this applicant has proposed over the course of a year.
This PUD case is no significant improvement over the PHO case. The applicant is running both cases in parallel to mask
the structural and real issues of density and zoning and to “see what sticks”. Please support the community! Again,
deny this case as filed and instead recommend approval of the community proposal for 46 lots and a conventional R1‐18
zoning district.
2
Sincerely,
Steven Dougherty
11222 S 39th LN
Laveen AZ 85339
Steven@StevenDougherty.com
480‐430‐6130 Cell
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner. The use or any action or reliance
on the communication is strictly prohibited by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‐2521.