Extracted text (via pymupdf)
111454 characters
1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Vializ, Lisa <Lisa.Vializ@Honeywell.com> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 10:42 AM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Letter of Opposition - PUD Case Z-60-20-8, April 12 LVPC, Agenda Item 5 Importance: High HiSofia, PleaseforwardthisemailtotheLVPCmembersandincludeitinthecasefileforZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8.‘Seeyoutonightস হ ’! Thankyou! LisaVializ **** LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.AttheApril12LVPCmeeting,IrespectfullyrequesttheLVPCunanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinstead recommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.”. ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Theissueisandalwayshasbeenaboutdensityandzoning.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisisthearea forthem!TheareasouthofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.Afewofthemanyreasonstodeny thisPUDasfiledare: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh. x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. $WWDFKPHQW+ 2 x APUDsetsabadprecedenceforthisareaandsurroundundevelopedland. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovement(itisawatereddownversion)overthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunning bothcasesinparalleltomaskthestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”. Densityandzoningareextremelyimportantandiswhythelargeoppositionexiststothisday.Asyoucanseefromthe belowrecentphoto,immediateneighbors,communityleadersandothersacrossLaveenareunitedandstillagainsthigh densityinthisarea. Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again,denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunity proposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. Bestregards, LisaVializ 8921S53rdDr. Laveen,AZ85339 602Ͳ741Ͳ5722 belairdream57@me.com 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: 2017 Camaro <lvializ@cox.net> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 11:07 AM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Letter of Opposition - PUD Case Z-60-20-8, April 12 LVPC, Agenda Item 5 GoodMorningSofia PleaseforwardthisemailtotheLVPCmembersandincludeitinthecasefileforZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8fortonight's meeting. Thankyou! IvanVializ **** LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownasthe Quarry/CarverMountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwere rightlyunanimousinyourdenialofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotlet yourunanimityorsupportofthecommunitywane.AttheApril12LVPCmeeting,Irespectfullyrequest theLVPCunanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor 46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethe partstating“the0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouth MountainPark.Thelatterparcelsareappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyof slopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.Themajorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabuffer betweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththemorestandard2Ͳ5du/a.”. ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18 proposalare0Ͳ2du/a.Theissueisandalwayshasbeenaboutdensityandzoning.Laveenlacks 2 diversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!TheareasouthofCarverFoothillsisspecialand deservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiledare: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh. x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthe previousinferiorsiteplanfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning, whichiscompatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursof thesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedinthe application/narrativethatstatestheapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.Thestipulationsinthe PHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.This blankcheckor“frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcase andisnotinthebestinterestoftheneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.Thisspecialarea ofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatibleplanthananythingthisapplicanthasproposed overthecourseofayear. x APUDsetsabadprecedenceforthisareaandsurroundundevelopedland. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovement(itisawatereddownversion)overthePHOcase.The applicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomaskthestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoning andto“seewhatsticks”. Densityandzoningareextremelyimportantandiswhythelargeoppositionexiststothisday.Asyou canseefromthebelowrecentphoto,immediateneighbors,communityleadersandothersacross Laveenareunitedandstillagainsthighdensityinthisarea. 3 Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again,denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthe communityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. Bestregards, IvanVializ 8921S53rdDr. Laveen,AZ85339 602Ͳ743Ͳ5427 lvializ@cox.net 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Donna Schober <donna.schober@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 12:27 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: PUD Z-60-20-8 DearMs.Mastikhina, WeareLaveenresidentsofmorethan22years,neartheprojecttitledPUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8.Wearestrongly opposedtothisprojectmovingforwardbecauseofthehighdensityandthezoningoriginallyspecifiedforthis particularpieceofproperty. WeasktheLVPCtodenythiscase.WerecommendtheproposalstronglysupportedbytheLaveen communityof46lotsandaconventionalzoningofR1Ͳ18. Thankyouforconsideringouropinionofthismatter. Sincerely, DonnaJ.Schober MarvinA.Sondag 10840S.30thAve Laveen,AZ85339 602Ͳ237Ͳ4887 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: C Gunderson <carrsgun@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 9:03 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Quarry Case PUD Z-60-20-8 LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterest oftheneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorand compatibleplanthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. 2 ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Bestregards, CarolynGunderson 3514WCheyenneDr. Laveen,AZ85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Kingston, Tom <tom.kingston@sap.com> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 1:10 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Opposition to High Density at 35th Ave. and Carver Rd. LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. 2 ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Bestregards, TomKingston 11820S.38thAve.LaveenAZ,85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Tayler Bell <taylerbell691@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 12:22 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Opposition to PUD Z-60-20-8 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 husband 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, Tayler Burchard 11244 S 35th Ave Laveen, AZ 85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Kingston, Suzanne <suzanne.kingston@supportivecaremedgroup.com> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 11:00 AM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Opposition to High Density 35th Ave. & Carver LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterest oftheneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorand compatibleplanthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. 2 ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Bestregards, SuzanneKingston 11820S.38thAve. Laveen,AZ85339 SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message AND deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Neal Haddad <neal.haddad@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 11:55 AM To: Sofia Mastikhina Cc: Paul Barnes Subject: COMMENT SUBMISSION: LVPC 4.12.21, Item #4: PUD Z-60-20-8 Please add the below statement to the subject file. Thank you. RE:PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8 VIAEMAIL MembersoftheLaveenVillagePlanningCommittee— AspeoplewhohavefollowedthiscasefromitsinitialPHOhearingthroughnow,weaskthatyoumovetodenythe applicationandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. TheLVPCunanimouslydeniedthepreviousapplication;tobestrepresentresidentsandthe community'swishes,weimplorecurrentmemberstodenytheapplicationagain. Asmembersknow,Laveenisauniqueareawithinthe519sq.mi.thatcomprisetheCityofPhoenix.Inour view,theapplicationbeforeyoudoesnotconsidertheLaveencommunity'sspecialattributesandinstead seeksonlytomaximizetheprofitsoftheapplicant. Aftermuchproceduraldelayandcontinuances,theapplicanthaspreparedandsubmittedaPlannedUnit Development(PUD).ThekeyphraseintheordinanceastowhythePUDispermittedistoprovidea "superiorbuiltenvironment"totraditionalzoning.Justhowisthisapplicationsuperior? BypursuingaPUDoption,theapplicantis,forzoningpurposes,creatingitsownrulesand,ineffect,itsown community.AnydevelopmentthatgoesinthatsiteispartoftheLaveencommunityandrequiresthe community'sadviceandconsent. Considerthesepoints: x Theproposed61lotsat3+densityunitsperacreremainsutterlyincompatiblewiththearea. x Whyaren'tyouapplyingthelegallybindingstipulationinthePHOcaseofzoningreversion(sothat thezoningrevertstothepreviouszoning)? x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(akadownͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingoftheprevious inferiorsiteplanfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandtheneighbors'proposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18 zoning,whichiscompatiblewiththeareaandisanexecutablesiteplanwithconforming stipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkadequatelytoconsiderthesite's elevationsandcontours. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. 2 x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrative thatstatestheapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsintheoriginalPHOcasearemore stringentthanthePUD.Whyarethesestipsbeingreducedatthisstageoftheprocess? APUDatthissiteisnotinthebestinterestoftheneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.Thisparticular areaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatibleplanthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedfor morethanayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesin parallel,complicatingthecasetomaskthestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto"seewhat sticks." Neighborsunderstandthesepointsandhavestuckwiththisarduousandarcaneprocessforyears.The communityisnotgoingtoletup. ThiscasewillheadtothePlanningCommissionandthentotheCityCouncil.Weareconstantlytoldthatthe VPCsaremeanttorepresenttheneighborsandprovideavoiceforthecommunity.Ifthatisthecase,your choiceisclear. Pleasesupportyourcommunity!Denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunity proposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. Respectfully, B.PaulBarnes NealHaddad NeighborhoodCoalitionofGreaterPhoenix 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Irma Cazarez <irmacazarez@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 3:29 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Letter of Opposition - PUD Case Z-60-20-8, April 12 LVPC, Agenda Item 5 Laveen Village Planning Committee Members, I am a long-time resident of Laveen Village. Together with my husband, we anchored ourselves in the general South Mountain area back in 2003. As a young family, with a drive for adventure and highly in tune with nature, we sought something that offered more of a sense of community, open space, and natural Arizona landscape. We carefully and patiently looked for an opportunity and in 2008, we identified our forever home located south of Carver Mountain. There she stood little Miss Shawnee (as I refer to her), tall and proud and ready for some much-needed love. We’ve dressed her up, given her love through the years and we continue to be blessed by her warmth. We have been fortunate enough to see our children grow and come of age. They roam within the neighborhood with no concerns and with confidence. They venture off on the mountain for afternoon hikes. More importantly, they’ve been lucky to grow with a true sense of community where most of our neighbors know one another and selfishly give each other a hand when needed. As a family, we love the open space this area offers and we'd love for this area to retain its charm. We are not opposed to growth or change as we are well aware that change is inevitable. However, we ask that you please evaluate the proposed development and realize that as proposed, both PUD Z-60-20-8, as well as the PHO-1- 19-Z-165-06-7(8), do not align with the area. They are both incompatible where the proposed density is much greater than the surrounding area. The area south of Carver Foothills is special and deserves an opportunity to flourish in a more compatible manner. We ask that you reject this case and instead recommend the approval of the community proposal of 46 lots and a conventional R1-18 zoning district. A few of the many reasons to deny this PUD as filed are: x The number of lots and the density is still too high x The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area. x 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. x 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. x The proposed conventional flat-land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site. x The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers. x 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. x 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, Irma Cazarez 3517 W Shawnee Dr Laveen, AZ 85339 Orlando Cazarez 3517 W Shawnee Dr Laveen, AZ 85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Gina Abbott <abbogina0@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 3:43 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Quarry Case PUD Z-60-20-8 LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. 2 ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. IjustbuiltahomeoutherelastyearandthereasonIchosethisareawasbecauseitwaslikethecountry.Wehadto haveanacreinordertobuildahouseanditisnicenottobesoclosetotheneighborshouse!Iloveitbecauseit’s peaceful,Iloveitbecausewehavesomanyanimalswildanddomesticouthere,Iloveitbecauseweallknoweach otherbecausewe’renotsodenselypopulated. Idonotwanttoseeitruinedbymoretraffic,morepollutionandmorepeople!Pleasedonotletthiscompanycreate thisdevelopmentthewaythattheywantit!Ifyouallowthesepeopletodowhattheywant,therewilldefinitelybe morethatwillfollowanditwilltotallydestroyourarea! Bestregards, ReginaAbbott 3832WFoxRd LaveenAZ85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Nicole Glasgow <blue_eyes821@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 4:53 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Pud z-60-20-8 LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. BestreLaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, 2 PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Bestregards, ThomasGlasgow 3717westCarverRd Laveen,AZ85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Nicole Glasgow <blue_eyes821@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 4:57 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Pud z-60-20-8 LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Bestregards, NicoleGlasgow 3717westCaverRd 2 Laveen,AZ85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: lynette cook <lmw_9641@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 9:20 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: PUD Z-60-20-8 Laveen Village Planning Committee Members, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownasthe Quarry/CarverMountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwere rightlyunanimousinyourdenialofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotlet yourunanimityorsupportofthecommunitywane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinstead recommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. 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.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18 proposalare0Ͳ2du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsand thisistheareaforthem!TheareasouthofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.A fewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiledare: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthe previousinferiorsiteplanfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning, whichiscompatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursof thesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedinthe application/narrativethatstatestheapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.Thestipulationsinthe PHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.This blankcheckor“frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcase andisnotinthebestinterestoftheneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.Thisspecialarea ofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatibleplanthananythingthisapplicanthasproposed overthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesin paralleltomaskthestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Please supportthecommunity!Again,denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthe communityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. Best regards, 2 Lynette Wiltgen 2214 W, Ian Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85041 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Jen Leitch <4jenleitch@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 11:13 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Opposition to PUD Z-60-20-8 Laveen Village Planning Committee Members, Undoubtedly you are receiving many letters that look like this. That is because the community is in complete agreement that this project is not right for us. Please consider all of the points below as you are making your decision. Please support our requested changes to this case. PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8asecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. 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.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x The number of lots and the density is still too high x The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area. x 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. x 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. x The proposed conventional flat-land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site. x The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers. x 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. x 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. 2 ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Jen Leitch 10109 S. 29th Drive 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: D in AZ <darcy3535@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 1:07 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Opposition to PUD Z-60-20-8 - Carver Mtn/Quarry Hello,First,ifyoudon'tknowwherethispropertyis,Iencourageyoutotakeacarridetoseeouruniqueareaas comparedtotherestofSouthPhoenix.YourdecisionwillimpactourquietwayoflifeandIwantyoutoseeforyourself thathighdensitytothissideofCarverMountainwouldchangethelandscapeandfeeltoourcommunity.Iwon'tbore youwithallthedetailsandhistoryasI'msureotherswillsendadetailedaccountoftheiroppositionandIwillbe speakingatthemeeting,butIamurgingyoutodenyPUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8LVPCasfiledandrecommendinsteadthe communityproposalof46lotsandaconventionalzoningofR1Ͳ18. Thankyou, DarcyMeyer 3535WBohlSt LaveenVillageAZ85339 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: x The number of lots and the density is still too high x The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area. x 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. x 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. x The proposed conventional flat-land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site. x The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers. x 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. x 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. Respectfully, Christine Danielson 2943 W. Ceton Dr. Laveen, AZ 85339-1744 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: BDM <ben.meyer3456@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 1:39 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Letter to Oppose PUD Z-60-20-8 To whom it may concern, Many of you may be new to the LVPC, but there is a PUD case that you will hear about on Apr 12. The applicant of PUD Z-60-20-8 has a parallel case PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7/8 that has dragged on because of the opposition of the neighbors. This PUD case involves more high density and zoning issues that are not compatible with our area. If you know our area, it has half to one acre (and more) lots. There are horse properties and lots of open space and it’s silent and dark at night. Who wouldn’t want to live in a community like this? The community does not support this PUD or PHO case. High density housing does not fit in this area. Please deny PUD Z-60-20-8 as filed. Sincerely, Benjamin Meyer 3535 W Bohl St Laveen, AZ 85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Scott Johnson <sjohnson@scottjce.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 9:17 AM To: Sofia Mastikhina Cc: 'Cyd Manning' Subject: RE: Letter of Opposition - PUD Case Z-60-20-8, April 12 LVPC, Agenda Item 5 HiSofia: Youcanaddmetotheoppositionlettersonthisfileplease.Ipreviouslyprovideanopposition letterandspokeinoppositionattheLVPChearingonthecompanionPHOcaseforthissite,so willnotrepeatallofthathere. Sufficeittosay,thecurrentPUDapplicationisnotsubstantivelydifferentfromtheprevious PHOapplicationfromthestandpointofthecommunity.Thisapplicanthasnot,inmyopinion, dealtwitheitherthecommunityorCouncilmanGarciaingoodfaithonthismatter.They continuetopushahighdensityprojectinalowdensityarea.TheCityhascontinuallyfailedto taketheappropriateactionwithregardtothezoningreversiononthisproperty,allowingthe ownertopushaninappropriatenumberofunitsintheirapplication(s). IurgetheLVPCtorecommenddenialofthisapplication. Thankyou,ScottJohnson ScottA.Johnson,P.E. President ScottJohnsonConsultingEngineersLLC 2030WestBaselineRoad,Suite182Ͳ223 Phoenix,Arizona85041 Phone:602Ͳ237Ͳ9609Fax:602Ͳ237Ͳ7672 Cell:602Ͳ320Ͳ2382sjohnson@scottjce.com From:CydManning<SweetBeat@q.com> Sent:Tuesday,April6,20215:33PM To:sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov Subject:LetterofOppositionͲPUDCaseZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8,April12LVPC,AgendaItem5 Importance:High HiSofia, Ihopeyouaredoingwell.PleaseforwardthisemailtotheLVPCmembersandincludeitinthecasefileforZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8. Thankyouandbestregards, Cyd 2 **** LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.AttheApril12LVPCmeeting,IrespectfullyrequesttheLVPCunanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinstead recommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.”. ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Theissueisandalwayshasbeenaboutdensityandzoning.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisisthearea forthem!TheareasouthofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.Afewofthemanyreasonstodeny thisPUDasfiledare: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh. x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Attheendofthisletter,I’veincludedthe longhistoryprovidedyouviaPlanninginDecember2020andI’veattachedthecommunityplanforyourreference.Feel freetocontactmeatanytimeifyouhavequestions. Densityandzoningareextremelyimportantandiswhythelargeoppositionexiststothisday.Asyoucanseefromthe belowrecentphoto,immediateneighbors,communityleadersandothersacrossLaveenareunitedandstillagainsthigh densityinthisarea. 3 Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again,denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunity proposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. Bestregards, CydManning 3220W.CetonDrive 480Ͳ747Ͳ0769 sweetbeat@q.com History/SummaryProvidedDecember16,2020ͲPostPUDInformationalMeetingatLVPC ExecutiveSummary: Theoriginalcasein2006/2007wasverycontentiousduetothehighͲdensitydevelopmentplaninanareathatfor25+ yearshasbeenplannedtobe0Ͳ1homesperacre.Thisincompatiblelanduseofspeculativespotzoningwaspushed throughregardlessofcommunityinvolvement.Thelargeoutpouringofcommunityoppositionremainstodaywiththe currentcase/PHOapplicationPHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8.Theapplicant/owner’srevisedproposalof63(recently61)lots onthe20ͲacreportionwithnozoningdistrictchangefromR1Ͳ8isstillincompatiblelanduseat3timesthedensityof adjacentandnearbyparcelszonedatR1Ͳ18andREͲ35.TheyalsohaveanactiveProposition207waiveronfilethat waivestheirrighttosuetheCityofPhoenix. AsyouheardwiththePUDcaseonMonday,theissuehasbeenandisaboutzoninganddensity. 4 Thecommunityhascontinuedtoproposeacompatiblelandusealternative(describedabove)withaconformingsite planandapplicablestipulationrevisions,alongwithazoningdistrictchange,thatissupportedbyCouncilmember Garcia.Thisoptionessentially“splitsthebaby”withthecommunitymovinguptwozoningdistrictsandthe applicant/ownermovingdowntwozoningdistricts.Ourproposalisatruemiddlegroundand“cutstothechase”given theCity’sinabilitytocodifythezoningreversionrequiredin2011,alongwiththerealignmentoftheGeneralPlan,to0Ͳ1 du/a. Youcanclearlyseebythegreenarrowsinthebelowgraphthatthecommunityhascompromisedsignificantlymore thantheapplicant. x NoteͲThe20Ͳacreand40Ͳacreparcelsarezonedseparatelyandcannotbecalculatedtogether 5 ThePHOcasewascontinuedtwice(July1standAugust26th)attheapplicantsrequesttoreviewandrespondtothe communityproposal.Theapplicantcontactedus6+weeksaftertheJuly1stcontinuanceandhadnotperformeda detailedreview/analysisofourplan.AftertheAugust26thcontinuance,theapplicantreachedoutafter3weeksto proposezerozoningchangeandatokenreductionof2lots(63to61).ThePHOcasewassetfortheCouncilagendaon October7andendedupbeingcontinuedforathirdtime.Inthemotiontocontinue,CouncilmemberGarciastatedhis motionwas“tocontinuethisitemfor6monthstotheAprilformalmeetingtoallowthepropertyownertofileazoning casetodownͲzonetheproperty”.ThePHOcaseisscheduledtobeheardattheApril7,2021CityCouncilformal meeting. NowtheapplicanthasfiledasecondandseparatecaseforaPUD,ZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8.ThisnewPUDcaseisnotadownͲzoning (e.g.reductioninzoning).ItissimplyarepackagingofthePHOcase. CaseHistoryDetails: x Weareresidentsofallsocialandeconomicbackgroundswhohaveworkedhardforourhomesandloveour community.Eventhoseneighborswithoccupationswhostandtobenefitfrommoredevelopment(e.g.realtors, insuranceagents,civilengineers,contractors,etc.)havebeenandareopposedtothishighͲdensitydevelopment becauseitdoesnotfitthearea.Wearenotagainstchange,development,growthoraffordablehousing.We areforresponsibledevelopmentthatiscompatiblewiththearea.WehavesupportedhighͲdensity developments,includingseveralcasesinthelastyear+,becausetheyfittheareabeingproposed. x Thevideoofourareaisonly42secondslongandcanbeplayeddirectlyfromthissecureDropbox link:https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfmz2e6htiasqd/Laveen.mp4?dl=0[dropbox.com] x TheoriginalGPAandZoningcasesin2006/2007wereverycontentiousandlastedalmost1year(GPAͲLVͲ2Ͳ06Ͳ7 andZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7) o Owner/applicantproposed: GPA5Ͳ10du/afrom0Ͳ1Residential/Parks/OpenSpace R1Ͳ18,40acres,22lotsat.56du/a R2,20acres,136multiͲfamilyunitsat6.8du/a o Significantcommunityopposition 200+communitymemberspetitionedinopposition;LVPC&LCRDunanimouslyopposed;GPA andZoningcasesappealed District7candidatesPastor&Nowakowskiopposed;CouncilmembersJohnsonandSimplot votedinopposition o Claimsofblight,hazardousmaterial,etc.wereallprovedtobefalse o TohelpprotecttheneighborhoodfromspeculativespotzoningandincompatiblehighͲdensity development,thenMayorGordoninsistedonincludingatimestipulation(Stipulation19)forzoning reversionifdevelopmentdidnotoccurin48months. o Ultimatelythe40ͲacreportionatR1Ͳ18and22lots,the20ͲacreportionatR1Ͳ8with99detachedvillas, andStipulation19forzoningreversionwasapprovedandcodifiedinOrdinanceGͲ5020 x TheCitydidfollowprocessinJuly2008andcodifiedaGPAalignmentonthisparcel o ThePlanningDirectorletterinthecasefilestates“TheLaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeinitiatedGPAͲ LVͲ1Ͳ08Ͳ7tocreateconsistencybetweentheLandUseMapandtheapprovedR1Ͳ8zoningandtoavoid creatingaprecedentforhigherdensitiesonthesurroundingparcels.” x ThecurrentPHOcaseisequallycontentiouswiththeapplicant/ownerignoringthecommunity’sinputuntil encouragedbyCouncilmemberGarcia o Theapplicantcontinuestoignore,orclaimstobesurprised,thatzoningisandhasbeentheissuefor13 years o Significantcommunityoppositionremains: 140+communitymembersinoppositionatLVPC;40+communitymembersinoppositionat PHO;70+communitymembersinoppositionatPlanningCommission LVPC&LCRDunanimouslyopposed;significantlyover250+communityletterssubmittedin oppositiontodate PHOandPlanningCommissionrecommendationswereappealed 6 CouncilmemberGarciaandothercommunityleadersareopposedtotheapplicant’splan o TheCityhasrefusedtoenforceOrdinanceGͲ5020Stipulation19whichstates“Thatapprovalshallbe conditionalupondevelopmentcommencingwithin48monthsoftheCityCouncilapprovalofthis changeofzoninginaccordancewithSection506.B.1oftheZoningOrdinance.Forpurposesofthis stipulation,developmentshallcommencewiththeissuanceofbuildingpermitsanderectionof buildingwallsonsite.”. CityCouncilapprovalwasonOctober10,2007andwiththe48Ͳmonthtiming,thezoningwas settoreverttoSͲ1asof2011. TodatetherehasbeennodevelopmentonthepropertyandnoactiontakenbytheCityto revertthezoningasrequired,despitemultiplerequeststodoso. o TechnicallythezoningclassificationforthispropertyhasbeenSͲ1sincelate2011,buthasyettobe codifiedbytheCityperOrdinanceGͲ5020 o TechnicallytheGeneralPlanis0Ͳ1du/a,NOT3.5to5,andtheCityisalsoobligatedtocodifythat designation 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Brian & Karie <carvercottage2018@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:29 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Zoning Case PUD Z-60-20-8 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Laveen Village Planning Committee Members, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. 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.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x The number of lots and the density is still too high x The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area. x 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. x 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. x The proposed conventional flat-land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site. x The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers. 2 x 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. x 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. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Best regards, Karie Hicks 4715 W Carver Rd Laveen AZ 85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Paul Banta <pwbantaz@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 6:11 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Letter for LVPC members, and request to donate speaking time for 4/12 meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged DearMs.MastikhinaͲ PleasesharethefollowinglettertotheLVPCmembers.Also,insteadofrequestingspeakingtimeformyself,Iwouldlike todonatemyspeakingtimefortheApril12,6:30meetingtoCydManning.Ihavealreadyregisteredforthisvery importantmeeting.Thankyou.ͲElizabethBanta(contactinformationisbelow). DearLaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, First,thankyouforyourservicetoourcommunity.Ihaveworkedformanymonthsfollowingtheareaknownasthe Quarry/CarverMountain.ItisasubjectthatIfeelextremelystronglyaboutandIrespectfullyrequestthatyoulisten, reflect,andactinoppositiontoPUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8.ThisisasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueand CarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/CarverMountain.YouareourprimaryvoicetothePhoenixCityCouncil.Youearned myrespectleastyearwhenyou,theLVPC,wererightlyunanimousinyourdenialofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ 1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Remainstrongonbehalfofourcommunity!Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. 2 x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterest oftheneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorand compatibleplanthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Sincerely, ElizabethBanta 3938WKayentaTrail Laveen,AZ85339 480Ͳ353Ͳ6019 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: brian hicks <handymanhicks@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:32 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Zoning Case PUD Z-60-20-8 Laveen Village Planning Committee Members, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. 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.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x The number of lots and the density is still too high x The proposed 61 lots at 3+ du/a is still completely incompatible with the area. x 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. x 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. x The proposed conventional flat-land site plan does not work with the elevations and contours of the site. x The applicant has not provided adequate open space or landscaping buffers. x 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. x 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 2 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. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Best regards, Brian Hicks 4715 W Carver Rd Laveen AZ 85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Paul Banta <pwbantaz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 6:39 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Quarry Case PUD Z-60-20-8 - opposition to high density development To:CityPlannerMs.SophiaMastikhina RegardingtheQuarryCasePUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8,Iwouldliketoexpressmyoppositiontoallowinghighdensitydevelopment onthisproperty. Thelocalcommunityhasbeenopposedtothisformorethanadecade.Againstthelocalcommunitieswishes,10+years agothepropertywaszonedforhighdensitydevelopment.However,aprovisionforareversionofthezoningchange wasaddedifthepropertywasn'tdevelopedinatimelymanner.Thepropertywasnotdeveloped.However,itappears thatthe"reversion"clauseismeaningless.Nooneinthecitygovernmentwillsupportchangingthezoningback. Morerecentlytherehasbeenapushbysomelandspeculatorstomakemoneybyflippingthisproperty.Theyaretrying togetahighdensityprojectapproved(80to90houses).Thelocalcommunityleadershavetriedtonegotiatethisdown toalessdensedevelopmentwithonly46houses.Thelandspeculatorsofcoursewanttomaximizetheirprofits.What isreallyfrustratingtothecommunityisthatthelandspeculatorsaretryingtoweardownthelocalcommunityby stretchingthisprocessoutwithrepeateddelays.Thecity,byagreeingtothesedelays,ishelpingthem. Pleaseunderstandthatthisisaveryuniquearea.Itisanarrowvalley,nestleduptoSouthMountainPark.Itis exclusively1acreorlargerlots.ThereisstillLOTSOFEMPTYLANDforcookiecutterhousingdevelopments.Pleasehelp usnegotiateamorereasonableplanforthisproperty. Sincerely, PaulBanta 4803536014 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Donna Snow <carart617@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 6:53 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Cc: Donna Snow Subject: Quarry Case PUD Z-60-20-8 LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.Unanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsanda conventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.” ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Densityandzoningaretheissueshere.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisistheareaforthem!Thearea southofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.AfewofthemanyreasonstodenythisPUDasfiled are: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again, denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18 zoningdistrict. Bestregards, 2 DonnaSnow 6806WDesertLane Laveen,AZ85339 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: Cyd Manning <SweetBeat@q.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 5:33 PM To: Sofia Mastikhina Subject: Letter of Opposition - PUD Case Z-60-20-8, April 12 LVPC, Agenda Item 5 Attachments: Community SIte Plan and Stipulations.pdf Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged HiSofia, Ihopeyouaredoingwell.PleaseforwardthisemailtotheLVPCmembersandincludeitinthecasefileforZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8. Thankyouandbestregards, Cyd **** LaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeMembers, PUDZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8isasecondandseparatecaseattheNWCof35thAvenueandCarverRoad,knownastheQuarry/Carver Mountain.You,thisVillage,weresupportiveofthecommunityandearlylastyearwererightlyunanimousinyourdenial ofthePHOversionofthiscase,PHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7(8).Donotletyourunanimityorsupportofthecommunity wane.AttheApril12LVPCmeeting,IrespectfullyrequesttheLVPCunanimouslyrejectthiscaseandinstead recommendapprovalofthecommunityproposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. TheapplicantlikestousetheLaveenSouthwestGrowthStudyintheirnarrativebutfailstoincludethepartstating“the 0Ͳ1designationwasplacedonpropertiesadjacenttotheCarverFoothillsandSouthMountainPark.Thelatterparcels areappropriateforlowdensitydevelopmentduetothetopographyofslopesandwashesandthedesertvegetation.The majorityofthe0Ͳ2propertyistoserveasabufferbetweenexistinglowerdensitylotsandnewsubdivisionswiththe morestandard2Ͳ5du/a.”. ALLtheadjacentandnearbyparcels,includingtheapplicant’s40ͲacresiteandthecommunityR1Ͳ18proposalare0Ͳ2 du/a.Theissueisandalwayshasbeenaboutdensityandzoning.Laveenlacksdiversityoflargelotsandthisisthearea forthem!TheareasouthofCarverFoothillsisspecialanddeservessomuchbetter.Afewofthemanyreasonstodeny thisPUDasfiledare: x Thenumberoflotsandthedensityisstilltoohigh. x Theproposed61lotsat3+du/aisstillcompletelyincompatiblewiththearea. x Thisplanisnotareductioninzoning(aka:downͲzoning).Itissimplyarepackagingofthepreviousinferiorsite planfromcasePHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8. x Theapplicantcontinuestoignorethecommunityandourproposalof46lotsatR1Ͳ18zoning,whichis compatiblewiththearea,andisanexecutablesiteplanwithconformingstipulations. x TheproposedconventionalflatͲlandsiteplandoesnotworkwiththeelevationsandcontoursofthesite. x Theapplicanthasnotprovidedadequateopenspaceorlandscapingbuffers. x ThePUDmaylookgoodonpaper,buttoomanythingsareopenͲendedintheapplication/narrativethatstates theapplicantMAYvs.SHALLorWILL.ThestipulationsinthePHOcasearemorestringentthanthePUD. 2 x APUDingeneraldoesnotprovidespecificdetailsorrequirementsofwhatwillbebuilt.Thisblankcheckor “frameworkofdevelopmentstandards”isinferiortoaconventionalzoningcaseandisnotinthebestinterestof theneighborhoodorbroaderLaveenVillage.ThisspecialareaofLaveendeservesafarsuperiorandcompatible planthananythingthisapplicanthasproposedoverthecourseofayear. ThisPUDcaseisnosignificantimprovementoverthePHOcase.Theapplicantisrunningbothcasesinparalleltomask thestructuralandrealissuesofdensityandzoningandto“seewhatsticks”.Attheendofthisletter,I’veincludedthe longhistoryprovidedyouviaPlanninginDecember2020andI’veattachedthecommunityplanforyourreference.Feel freetocontactmeatanytimeifyouhavequestions. Densityandzoningareextremelyimportantandiswhythelargeoppositionexiststothisday.Asyoucanseefromthe belowrecentphoto,immediateneighbors,communityleadersandothersacrossLaveenareunitedandstillagainsthigh densityinthisarea. Pleasesupportthecommunity!Again,denythiscaseasfiledandinsteadrecommendapprovalofthecommunity proposalfor46lotsandaconventionalR1Ͳ18zoningdistrict. Bestregards, CydManning 3220W.CetonDrive 480Ͳ747Ͳ0769 sweetbeat@q.com History/SummaryProvidedDecember16,2020ͲPostPUDInformationalMeetingatLVPC ExecutiveSummary: Theoriginalcasein2006/2007wasverycontentiousduetothehighͲdensitydevelopmentplaninanareathatfor25+ yearshasbeenplannedtobe0Ͳ1homesperacre.Thisincompatiblelanduseofspeculativespotzoningwaspushed throughregardlessofcommunityinvolvement.Thelargeoutpouringofcommunityoppositionremainstodaywiththe 3 currentcase/PHOapplicationPHOͲ1Ͳ19ͲZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7/8.Theapplicant/owner’srevisedproposalof63(recently61)lots onthe20ͲacreportionwithnozoningdistrictchangefromR1Ͳ8isstillincompatiblelanduseat3timesthedensityof adjacentandnearbyparcelszonedatR1Ͳ18andREͲ35.TheyalsohaveanactiveProposition207waiveronfilethat waivestheirrighttosuetheCityofPhoenix. AsyouheardwiththePUDcaseonMonday,theissuehasbeenandisaboutzoninganddensity. Thecommunityhascontinuedtoproposeacompatiblelandusealternative(describedabove)withaconformingsite planandapplicablestipulationrevisions,alongwithazoningdistrictchange,thatissupportedbyCouncilmember Garcia.Thisoptionessentially“splitsthebaby”withthecommunitymovinguptwozoningdistrictsandthe applicant/ownermovingdowntwozoningdistricts.Ourproposalisatruemiddlegroundand“cutstothechase”given theCity’sinabilitytocodifythezoningreversionrequiredin2011,alongwiththerealignmentoftheGeneralPlan,to0Ͳ1 du/a. Youcanclearlyseebythegreenarrowsinthebelowgraphthatthecommunityhascompromisedsignificantlymore thantheapplicant. 4 x NoteͲThe20Ͳacreand40Ͳacreparcelsarezonedseparatelyandcannotbecalculatedtogether ThePHOcasewascontinuedtwice(July1standAugust26th)attheapplicantsrequesttoreviewandrespondtothe communityproposal.Theapplicantcontactedus6+weeksaftertheJuly1stcontinuanceandhadnotperformeda detailedreview/analysisofourplan.AftertheAugust26thcontinuance,theapplicantreachedoutafter3weeksto proposezerozoningchangeandatokenreductionof2lots(63to61).ThePHOcasewassetfortheCouncilagendaon October7andendedupbeingcontinuedforathirdtime.Inthemotiontocontinue,CouncilmemberGarciastatedhis motionwas“tocontinuethisitemfor6monthstotheAprilformalmeetingtoallowthepropertyownertofileazoning casetodownͲzonetheproperty”.ThePHOcaseisscheduledtobeheardattheApril7,2021CityCouncilformal meeting. NowtheapplicanthasfiledasecondandseparatecaseforaPUD,ZͲ60Ͳ20Ͳ8.ThisnewPUDcaseisnotadownͲzoning (e.g.reductioninzoning).ItissimplyarepackagingofthePHOcase. CaseHistoryDetails: x Weareresidentsofallsocialandeconomicbackgroundswhohaveworkedhardforourhomesandloveour community.Eventhoseneighborswithoccupationswhostandtobenefitfrommoredevelopment(e.g.realtors, insuranceagents,civilengineers,contractors,etc.)havebeenandareopposedtothishighͲdensitydevelopment becauseitdoesnotfitthearea.Wearenotagainstchange,development,growthoraffordablehousing.We areforresponsibledevelopmentthatiscompatiblewiththearea.WehavesupportedhighͲdensity developments,includingseveralcasesinthelastyear+,becausetheyfittheareabeingproposed. x Thevideoofourareaisonly42secondslongandcanbeplayeddirectlyfromthissecureDropbox link:https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfmz2e6htiasqd/Laveen.mp4?dl=0[dropbox.com] x TheoriginalGPAandZoningcasesin2006/2007wereverycontentiousandlastedalmost1year(GPAͲLVͲ2Ͳ06Ͳ7 andZͲ165Ͳ06Ͳ7) o Owner/applicantproposed: GPA5Ͳ10du/afrom0Ͳ1Residential/Parks/OpenSpace R1Ͳ18,40acres,22lotsat.56du/a R2,20acres,136multiͲfamilyunitsat6.8du/a o Significantcommunityopposition 200+communitymemberspetitionedinopposition;LVPC&LCRDunanimouslyopposed;GPA andZoningcasesappealed District7candidatesPastor&Nowakowskiopposed;CouncilmembersJohnsonandSimplot votedinopposition o Claimsofblight,hazardousmaterial,etc.wereallprovedtobefalse o TohelpprotecttheneighborhoodfromspeculativespotzoningandincompatiblehighͲdensity development,thenMayorGordoninsistedonincludingatimestipulation(Stipulation19)forzoning reversionifdevelopmentdidnotoccurin48months. 5 o Ultimatelythe40ͲacreportionatR1Ͳ18and22lots,the20ͲacreportionatR1Ͳ8with99detachedvillas, andStipulation19forzoningreversionwasapprovedandcodifiedinOrdinanceGͲ5020 x TheCitydidfollowprocessinJuly2008andcodifiedaGPAalignmentonthisparcel o ThePlanningDirectorletterinthecasefilestates“TheLaveenVillagePlanningCommitteeinitiatedGPAͲ LVͲ1Ͳ08Ͳ7tocreateconsistencybetweentheLandUseMapandtheapprovedR1Ͳ8zoningandtoavoid creatingaprecedentforhigherdensitiesonthesurroundingparcels.” x ThecurrentPHOcaseisequallycontentiouswiththeapplicant/ownerignoringthecommunity’sinputuntil encouragedbyCouncilmemberGarcia o Theapplicantcontinuestoignore,orclaimstobesurprised,thatzoningisandhasbeentheissuefor13 years o Significantcommunityoppositionremains: 140+communitymembersinoppositionatLVPC;40+communitymembersinoppositionat PHO;70+communitymembersinoppositionatPlanningCommission LVPC&LCRDunanimouslyopposed;significantlyover250+communityletterssubmittedin oppositiontodate PHOandPlanningCommissionrecommendationswereappealed CouncilmemberGarciaandothercommunityleadersareopposedtotheapplicant’splan o TheCityhasrefusedtoenforceOrdinanceGͲ5020Stipulation19whichstates“Thatapprovalshallbe conditionalupondevelopmentcommencingwithin48monthsoftheCityCouncilapprovalofthis changeofzoninginaccordancewithSection506.B.1oftheZoningOrdinance.Forpurposesofthis stipulation,developmentshallcommencewiththeissuanceofbuildingpermitsanderectionof buildingwallsonsite.”. CityCouncilapprovalwasonOctober10,2007andwiththe48Ͳmonthtiming,thezoningwas settoreverttoSͲ1asof2011. TodatetherehasbeennodevelopmentonthepropertyandnoactiontakenbytheCityto revertthezoningasrequired,despitemultiplerequeststodoso. o TechnicallythezoningclassificationforthispropertyhasbeenSͲ1sincelate2011,buthasyettobe codifiedbytheCityperOrdinanceGͲ5020 o TechnicallytheGeneralPlanis0Ͳ1du/a,NOT3.5to5,andtheCityisalsoobligatedtocodifythat designation 1 Community Site Plan Community Proposed Site Plan with R1-18 zoning district on the 20 acre parcel: 2 Stipulations from PHO Case • 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: • THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM 35TH AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. • 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 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 Reference PHO-1-19-Z-165-06-7(8) 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: Edward Moore <emoore@vizzda.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 6:52 PM To: Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina Cc: Council District 8 PCC Subject: Public comment re: PUD Z-60-20-8 for May 6 Planning Commission Hearing IamaresidentinLaveenandliveafewhundredyardstothesouthwestofthesitecalled"TheQuarry"hereat35th AvenueandCarverRd.(APN300Ͳ11Ͳ008X)AdevelopmentatthissiteisbeingcalledtheCarverCanyonPUD.Iwould liketosharemythoughtsonthis. ThesouthofCarverRoadhasbeendevelopedatanRUͲ43densityandisagreatneighborhood.Whatyoucan'tseeina satelliteimageisthatourneighborhoodisnestledinabitofabowlbetween"SouthMountain"and"CarverMountain" creatingmountainviewsinalldirections.Thehomesareonlargerlotsthatarecoveredwithnativeplants.Thereisn'ta singlegrassyyardinthiscommunity.Ihaven'tseenasingleoutͲofͲplacetree...noOaks,Birch,Aspens,etc.Thetrees hereareIronwoods,PaloVerde,andCreosote...theydropseedsandflowersfortheroundͲtailedsquirrels, theGambleQuail,themourningdoves,Gilawoodpeckers,roadrunners,coyotes,owls,andeventheJavelinasthatlive hereandwanderacrosstheseproperties.Manyofthelotsdonotevenhavefences.Wehavedirtroads.Thisisnot suburbia...wearelivingwithinanaturallandscape...andthenativeanimalsthatlivewithSouthMountainParkcome downandwanderthroughourcommunityandsharethisneighborhoodwithus.Itisaveryspecialcommunity.IhopeI amcommunicatingwhatitisliketolivehere. ThezoningtothenorthofCarverhadbeenthesameinthepastbutwasdoubledduringtherealestateboomphase... andwasnotrevertedasitshouldhavebeen.Tothenorthofmyhometherearenowtwoprojectsbeingplannedthat haveapproximatelydouble(ormore!)ofthedensityofmyneighborhood. First,theCarverMountainSouthprojectwasfinalͲplattedlastMay.Thatplanwillcreate111newhomeson59acresof a95Ͳacresiteaboutahundredyardsfrommyhouse.Thehomebuilderscan'tbuildcheaplyonthesteepslopesand hilltopssothislandwillnotbeimprovedandsotheywereinsteadalloweddoublethedensityontheotherhalfofthe property.Thismathlooksgoodonpaperbuttherealityisthatitisgoingtocreateaverydifferenttypeofneighborhood towhatweenjoynowwhichisn'tveryconsistentwiththefeelofthedevelopmentinthisrestofthislittlecommunity.It willbeabitofsuburbiaintrudingintothissmallvalleywhichhadbeenmorenaturalisticandnaturefriendlyupuntil now. Theotherprojectistheonethatisbeforeyoutoday...theCarverCanyonPUD.IftheCarverMountainSouthproject makesmefeelsadandthatsuburbiainintrudingintoandtransformingmycommunity...theCarverCanyonPUDis muchworse.Thedocumentsyouhavebeforeyoustatearesidentialdensityof3Ͳ5shouldbefinehere.No problemo!Wellitisaproblemforme.Thisis5xthedensityofourcommunityupuntilnowandmorethan2xthe densityofthe"suburbia"CarverMountainSouthproject...itiswildlyinconsistentwiththesurroundingcommunity.I don'tknowwhythiswouldevenbeconsidered.Iassumethatthehomebuildersdon'twanttodevelopthesteeper slowsonthewesternhalfoftheirlandandthattheplannersarejustallowingthemtocreate5xtheappropriatedensity ontheeasternmostquarteroftheparcelintheareathatisflattestandcheapesttodevelop...thusbasicallywrecking thefeelofmycommunity,basically.That'sjustnotOK.Pleaseprotectmycommunityandseeitdevelopedator aroundadensityof1.0whichisappropriateforourneighborhood.Pleasedonotinstallandexpandpocketsofadense suburbiaintomycommunitybecauseacalculatortellsyouthatthevacantlandisacounterͲbalance.Itisn't.Thisland couldbedevelopedwithsinglefamilyhomesandranchetteswhichcoveramuchlargerareaofthepropertyandTHISis whatwouldbemoreconsistentwiththecommunity.Let'shaveabitofbalanceinthisdevelopment.Pleaseconsider thepropertiessurroundingthisone.Thereisarealestateboomgoingon.Theownershipgroupwhichisdeveloping 2 thislandisgoingtomakeafortuneanddon'tneedtobeawardedpermissiontobuildatanoutrageouslocalized densitieswhichwillcreateablightandrobvaluefromtherestoftheneighborhood. PleasesendthisprojectbackforsomereͲenvisioningforhowitcanbedevelopedinawaywhichismoreconsistentwith therestofourcommunity.Thecurrentvisionisnotatallconsistentwithourcommunity. IfyouwanttoseethiscommunityandgetafeelforwhatI'mdescribing...comehere.TheIronwoodarebloomingwith purpleflowers,thePaloVerdearecoveredinyellowflowers...andeverywhereyoulookyouwillseesquirrels,quail, dovesandtheotherresidents. Sincerely, Edward ͲͲ EdwardMoore RealEstateResearcher Vizzda [vizzdanews.blogspot.com] 1 Sofia Mastikhina From: John Knight <john.knight@aircomm.com> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 9:34 AM To: Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina Cc: Council District 8 PCC; Dr. Dean G. Gordy Fairchild, Ph.D.; Elizabeth Banta; desertofeden@msn.com Subject: Laveen Project CARVER RD (Mountain) and 35th Avenue Ms.EscolarandMs.Mastikhina Ihopethisemailfindsyouwell.WehavebeenaresidentinLaveenat4036WKivaStreetsince2003.Weboughtand investedheavilyinthisareabecauseofwhattheCitylaidoutin1995intheLaveenMasterPlan.Unfortunately,over thelast25years,theplanhasbeencompletelyignoredinmanyareas.ThelandandhomesadjacenttoCarver MountainandtheSouthMountainPreserveareuniquehomesthatofferacompletelydifferentlifestylethanhigh densitydevelopments.Thisareawassetasidetokeepdensitylowtoshowcaseoneofthecity'sgreatestassets.South Mountain.Thehomesbeingbuiltheretodayarecloseto$1MillionDollarsandhavea15%maxfootprintlimit.Weas residentsandalargetaxbaseoftheCountyandCitycannoturgeyouenoughtorespectthisareaanddoeverything possibletoprotectourinvestmentinanEquestrian,OpenSkies,LowDensityandLowTrafficpartofLaveen.I understandthattheLCRDandResidentshavecometogether(usincluded)onadesignthatisacceptabletothe consensusandurgeyourcontinuedsupport. Precedenceiseverything.Wehaveseenparcelbyparcelcomeupandzoningchangedatthedropofahat.Iwould speculatethatifwetriedtobuildsmallhomesnexttotheCEOandExecutivesoftheprevailinghomebuilders,they wouldnotlettheirownproductbebuiltnexttotheirlargegatedcommunities.Weaskthatthissacredareabyleftto onehomeperacreasmuchaspossible.Allittakesisonedecisionandwewillseethesamerecklessbuildingnextto ourlargepropertiesandhomes.ThiswilldevalueourinvestmentinadiverseLaveen. Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasefeelfreetoreachoutbyemailorbyphone. Myregards. ͲͲ To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. [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] 1 Racelle Escolar From: Ruth Franklin <ruthie_franklin@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 1:30 PM To: Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina Cc: Council District 8 PCC Subject: Re: Subject: Opposition to Case PUD Z-60-20-8 for May 6 Planning Commission Hearing – Request to Support LVPC Recommendation Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing again to clarify that I am in opposition to the case. The LVPC is also in opposition to the case. Thank you, Ruth Franklin On Sunday, May 2, 2021, 10:27:31 AM PDT, Ruth Franklin <ruthie_franklin@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Planning Commission Members, The subject PUD is the second zoning case at the NWC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road in Laveen known as the Quarry. You heard the PHO version of this case mid-last year and the outpouring of community opposition to high density and incompatible land use in this area. Councilmember Garcia led the City Council in a continuance of the PHO case at the October 2020 City Council meeting and requested the applicant process a “down-zoning”. Since that time, the applicant has pursued the subject PUD case that you will hear on May 6. The LVPC and community provided input throughout the PUD process and during the April 12, 2021 LVPC meeting. I support the LVPC recommendation and I respectfully request the Planning Commission recommend approval of the April 12 LVPC recommendation when you hear this case on May 6. The LVPC resolved the structural issues of density and zoning, and made this a much better development than the PHO case. Their vote approved a maximum of 46 lots total (which conforms to the plan put forth by the community, as opposed to the high density plan the applicant presented), minimum lot size of 8700 sq. ft., enhanced building architecture and landscaping standards stipulations that result in compatible land use and is equivalent to R1-18 density. Councilmember Garcia has supported the community with a 46-lot, R1-18 plan throughout the PHO case last year and we expect his support of the LVPC recommendation. Please stand with the LVPC and community and support the LVPC recommendation in this case. Best regards, Ruth Franklin 3143 W Avion Way Laveen, AZ 85339