Z2019136 BOS REPORT.PDF

Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date: February 10, 2021
Case #/Title: Z2019136 – Symmetry at 56th St. & Lone Mountain
Supervisor District: 2
Applicant/Owners: William Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA / Arnold 56th Street
Investment Company, LLC, Susan Arnold Demuro, and Alice
Opal Arnold
Request: Zone change from Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD
Site Location: Generally located ¼ mile southeast of the southeast corner of
Lone Mountain Rd. and 56th St. in the Phoenix area
Site Size: Approximately 28 acres
County Island Status: Yes (City of Phoenix)
Additional
Comments: The original application was for a rezoning to R1-10 RUPD
which received a recommendation of approval (7-0) by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on March 12, 2020. The
applicant had requested the Commission to include
additional development standards to limit the number of lots
to 65, and inclusion of open space buffer, landscaping buffer
and view fencing. On April 8, 2020 the Board of Supervisors
continued the case to the May 6th hearing. At the May 6th
hearing, the Board motioned for an indefinite continuance to
allow the developer to work with the neighbors on issues and
concerns. In late November 2020, the applicant amended
the rezoning application to R1-18 RUPD to address concerns
raised by the community. Since the amended application
changed the zoning from R1-10 RUPD to R1-18 RUPD, the
applicant was advised that the amended application would
need to progress back through the Planning and Zoning
Commission. At the January 14, 2021 Commission hearing, the
Commission voted to recommend approval by a vote of 6-0
of the modified R1-18 RUPD application. There are no
outstanding concerns from reviewing agencies.
Staff has calculated the support and opposition received,
and notes that a Super Majority Vote has been triggered. The
trigger is when 20% or more of property owners within a 300’
radius of the subject site, by number and area register
February 10, 2021
Z2019136
Page 1 of 4

opposition to the case. The opposition received accounts for
18 property owners with an area of 961,103 sq. ft.
The calculations for Symmetry at 56th St. & Lone Mountain are
as follows:
55% opposed parcel acreage within 300’ buffer
50% opposed parcel numbers within 300’ buffer
There were numerous area residents that presented in
opposition at the Commission hearing. A total of 11 area
residents registered opposition with concerns associated with
high density, layout design changes without input from the
community, lighting and non-compatible subdivision with the
rural/equestrian lifestyle. The owner presented in support of
the application, and one area resident in support.
Per recommendation of legal counsel there was modification
of condition ‘c.1’ to strikeout ‘lots’ and replace with ‘homes’.
The applicant also proposed a condition regarding
emergency access only for Wildcat Dr. The Commission
recommended approval of the zone change request with
modified conditions shown below in legislative edit format.
c. The following R1-18 RUPD standards shall apply:
1. Max. Height: 30’, all lots homes limited to single story
o. Access shall be limited to emergency access only on
Wildcat Dr.
Commission
Recommendation: On 1/14/21, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of Z2019136 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘o’:
a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit
entitled “56th St. & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated December
2020 and stamped received December 27, 2020, except as modified by the
following conditions.
b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled “56th Street & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 20 pages, dated
December 14, 2020, and stamped received December 27, 2020, except as
modified by the following conditions.
c. The following R1-18 RUPD standards shall apply:
1. Max. Height: 30’, all homes limited to single story
2. Min. Front Yard: 20’ front loaded garage, 10’ side loaded garage or livable
area of dwelling unit.
3. Min. Side Yard: 5’
4. Min. Street-side Yard: 10’
5. Min. Rear Yard: 20’
February 10, 2021
Z2019136
Page 2 of 4

6. Minimum Lot Area: 10,125 sq. ft.
7. Minimum Lot Width: 75’
8. Average Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 18,081 sq. ft.
9. Maximum Lot Coverage: 55%
10. Min. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces: 2
d. The total number of residential units shall not exceed 56.
e. The developer shall provide a 25’ open space buffer on the northern perimeter of
the property to be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
f. The developer shall provide a 40’ landscape buffer on the north side of the
southern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowners
Association.
g. The developer shall provide a view fence on the southern perimeter of the
property.
h. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. The development of the site will pose significant challenges with respect to
storm water management. Without the submittal of a precise plan of
development, no development approval is inferred by this review,
including, but not limited to drainage design, access and roadway
alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans progress
and are submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement.
2. A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement
application (i.e. preliminary plat).
3. Dedication of right-of-way along 56th Street (section) and Montgomery
Road (mid-section) will be required as part of future entitlement (i.e. final
plat), unless otherwise waived by MCDOT.
4. If required for site development, the CLOMR application must be submitted
to the Flood Control District prior to or concurrent with any future
entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat).
5. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies
and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT
Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and
best practices at the time of application for construction.
i. Zoning approval is conditional per Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Article
304.6, and ARS § 11-814 for five (5) years within which time the initial subdivision
infrastructure permit or construction permit must be obtained. The applicant shall
submit a written report every five years from the date of Board of Supervisors
approval of Z2019136 which details the status of this project, including progress on
obtaining subdivision infrastructure and/or construction permits. The status report
to be administratively reviewed by Planning and Development with the ability to
administratively accept or to carry the status report to the Board of Supervisors
(Board), upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission
(Commission) for consideration of amendments or revocation of zoning for
undeveloped parcels. Status reports will be required until completion of the initial
February 10, 2021
Z2019136
Page 3 of 4

subdivision infrastructure and/or construction permits for each zoning parcel (R1-
18 RUPD).
j. Prior to approval of the initial final plat, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa
County Planning and Development Department with the approved
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale that
is referenced in the February 26, 2020 letter issued by Brian K. Biesmeyer, Executive
Director of Scottsdale Water, or other document acceptable to Maricopa County
which assures sewer service.
k. Prior to initial final plat approval, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department with a ‘will serve’ letter from the City of
Scottsdale or City of Phoenix for water service, or other document acceptable to
Maricopa County which assures water service.
l. Noncompliance with any condition herein or Maricopa County Regulation shall
be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as set forth in the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
m. The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in value if
the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance with
conditions.
n. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the
applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on
the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply
with any condition, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date
of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due
to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that
existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and
that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held
on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone
Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the
Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value
of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
o. Access shall be limited to emergency access only on Wildcat Dr.
Presented by: Rachel Applegate, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments: 1/14/21 P&Z Packet (70 pages)
Opposition – PZ handouts (14 pages)
Support – PZ handout (1 page)
Opposition e-mail read into the record for PZ Hearing (1 page)
PZ Appeal Form (1 page)
Opposition received after PZ hearing (1 page)
Support received after PZ hearing (1 page)
300’ Opposition/Support Map (1 page)
Opposition/Support Area of Interest map (1 page)
Note: 1/14/21 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can
be provided upon request later when available.
February 10, 2021
Z2019136
Page 4 of 4

Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: Z2019136 – Symmetry at 56th St. & Lone Mountain
Hearing Date: January 14, 2021
Supervisor District: 2
Applicant: William Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Owners: Arnold 56th Street Investment Company, LLC, Susan Arnold Demuro,
and Alice Opal Arnold
Request: Zone change from Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD
Site Location: Generally located ¼ mile southeast of the southeast corner of Lone
Mountain Rd. and 56th St. in the Phoenix area
Site Size: Approx. 28 acres
Density: 2.0 d.u./ac.
County Island: Yes (City of Phoenix)
County Plan: Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Rural Development Area (0-1
d.u./ac)
Municipal Plan: City of Phoenix – Residential (1-2 d.u./ac.)
Municipal Comments: None received to date
Support/Opposition: 93 in opposition and 40 in support (original application R1-10 RUPD)
6 in opposition, signed petition with 70 signatures in opposition
(amended application to R1-18 RUPD)
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Z2019136
Page 1 of 12

Project Summary:
1. The request is to rezone approximately 28 acres from Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD (Residential
Unit Plan of Development) for development of a single-family residential subdivision
called Symmetry at 56th St. and Lone Mountain.
2. Staff notes this application received a recommendation of approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on March 12, 2020 for a zone change request from Rural-43 to R1-10
RUPD. The applicant requested the Commission include additional development
standards to limit the number of lots to a maximum of 65, and the inclusion of open space
buffer and landscaping buffer and view fencing. On April 8th the Board of Supervisors
continued the case to May 6th. At the May 6th Board hearing, the Board motioned for the
case to be continued indefinitely to allow the developer to work with the neighbors on
issues and concerns. Late November 2020, the applicant amended the application to
R1-18 RUPD to address concerns raised by the community. The applicant conducted
additional outreach meetings via virtual meetings with the community in December.
3. The proposed subdivision will be limited to 56 (reduction from 65 lots) single family
residential lots with a maximum density of 2.0 d.u./ac (reduction from 2.7 d.u/ac.). The
subject site consists of 6 parcels located ¼ mile southeast of the southeast corner of Lone
Mountain Rd. and 56th St. in the northeast Phoenix area. Staff notes that a preliminary plat
with lotting layout has not been submitted at this time. The subdivision is projected to
develop as a single phase with completion in March 2022.
4. The narrative states that Shea Homes is proposing to develop the site for a high quality
single-family residential community. The community would include a centralized open
space that accounts for 35% (increase from the originally proposed 25%) of the gross
acreage with approx. 9.9 acres (increase from the originally proposed 6.9 acres).
Symmetry would increase diversity of home ownership in the region along with continued
growth within the northeast valley. Shea is proposing to develop the subdivision with
reduced yard maintenance obligations, thus allowing for increased square footage of
the homes which is a current trend with homebuyers in all stages of life. The design would
also allow for a varied streetscape with utilization of an innovative housing product,
increased square footage, and larger front porches.
5. Access to the subdivision will be a single gated access from 56th Street with private
internal streets to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. A
secondary emergency access is proposed along the eastern boundary to Wildcat Dr.
(public street) via Lone Mountain Ranch subdivision. No access is proposed along
Montgomery Rd.
6. Shown on the next page is the R1-18 RUPD amended development standards which
include a request to reduce the front, side and street-side yard setbacks; increase lot
coverage, and reduce lot width. The lot size will be reduced over the based standard by
7,875 sq. ft. The applicant has stated the reason for the amended development
standards is to develop the site consistent with current residential markets in the area. The
request will create diversity of home ownership opportunities.
Z2019136
Page 2 of 12

BASE ZONING DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATION
REGULATIONS (R1-18) REGULATIONS (R1-18 RUPD)
30’ – all lots limited to single
Max. Height 30'
story
20’ front loaded garage, 10’
Min. Front Yard 30' side loaded garage or livable
area of dwelling unit
Min. Side Yard 10’ 5’
Min. Street-side Yard 15’ 10’
Min. Rear Yard 30' 20’
Min. Lot Area 18,000 sq. ft. 10,125 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width 120’ 75’
Avg. Lot Area per Dwelling
18,000 sq. ft. 18,081 sq. ft.
Unit
Max. Lot Coverage 35% 55%
Min. Number of Off-Street
2 2
Parking Spaces
Previous R1-10 RUPD and proposed R1-18 RUPD request comparison chart:
ORIGINAL
AMENDED ZONING
APPLICATION
DISTRICT
REGULATION PROPOSED ZONING
REGULATIONS (R1-
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
18 RUPD)
(R1-10 RUPD)
30’ – all lots limited
Max. Height 30’
to single story
20’ front loaded
garage, 10’ side
Min. Front Yard 10’ loaded garage or
livable area of
dwelling unit
Min. Side Yard 5’ & 10’ 5’
Min. Street-side Yard 10’ 10’
Min. Rear Yard 25’ 20’
Min. Lot Area 10,125 sq. ft. 10,125 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width 75’ 75’
Avg. Lot Area per
Dwelling 12,000 sq. ft. 18,081 sq. ft.
Unit
Max. Lot Coverage 55% 55%
Min. Number of Off-
2 2
Street Parking Spaces
Z2019136
Page 3 of 12

Aerial image of subject site.
Aerial image of subject site and surrounding land uses.
Z2019136
Page 4 of 12

7. Water will be provided by the City of Scottsdale; the site is located within zone 8 of the
City’s water system. The applicant states there is existing water infrastructure adjacent to
the project which includes an 8” and 12” water main on 56th St. directly west of the
project, a 12” water main on Montgomery Rd., and 8” line on Wildcat Dr.
8. Wastewater service will be provided by the City of Phoenix via an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA), an existing 8” gravity sewer line is located approximately at the
southwest corner of 56th St. and Montgomery Rd. The applicant states wastewater
service design will be in coordination with the City of Scottsdale to include a network of
8” on-site sewer mains to convey flows to 56th on the west side. The pre-service
agreements for these services are currently not finalized with the cities, but the applicant
has stated these are in for review and approval. Staff received a letter from the City of
Scottsdale Water indicating that Scottsdale intends to provide water and sewer, with IGA
with Phoenix to connect to the City of Phoenix sewer system.
Zoning Districts and City of Phoenix jurisdiction located north of Lone Mountain Rd. and west of 56th Street.
9. The site is located within the Cave Creek Unified School District which includes the
following school boundaries, Lone Mountain Elementary (approx. 0.6 miles), Sonoran Trails
Middle School (approx. 2.3 miles) and Cactus Shadows High School (2.3 miles). Shown on
the next page is the conceptual open space layout. The conceptual plan includes a
centralized community gathering area along the proposed interior roadway. The open
space will include active and passive space with turf areas, a shaded tot lot and ramada
with picnic area.
10. The site slopes to the southwest with 2% to 3%, with offsite flows to the site from the north
and east. The offsite flows are conveyed in a natural wash along the northern boundary
and proposed channel along the east and southern region to convey offsite runoff
Z2019136
Page 5 of 12

around the lots and to return to historic locations. The wash along the northern region of
the property is pending designation as flood hazard Zone AE, which is defined as the
base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. The site will be graded for
storm water storage to account for the 100 year, 2 hour storm retention requirement. The
subdivision streets will convey on-site runoff to the stormwater storage basins. Planning
Engineering has provided a condition that this site will pose significant challenges with
storm water management. Without submittal of a precise plan of development or a
preliminary plat, no Planning Engineering approval is inferred by the review of the zone
change application. The drainage design, engineering, access and roadway alignments
will be evaluated and addressed as the subdivision project progresses with a preliminary
plat. A traffic impact study must be submitted with the preliminary plat.
Conceptual Site Plan
Z2019136
Page 6 of 12

Conceptual Open Space Plan
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
11. On-site: Rural-43 / existing unpermitted structures
North: Rural-43 / scattered large lot residential
South: Rural-43 / scattered large lot residential
East: Rural-43 / Subdivision (Lone Mountain Ranch)
West: RE-35 (City of Phoenix) / vacant
Existing surrounding zoning districts in City of Phoenix jurisdiction
Z2019136
Page 7 of 12

Utilities and Services:
12. Water: City of Scottsdale or City of Phoenix
Wastewater: City of Scottsdale with IGA with the City of Phoenix
School District: Cave Creek Unified School District
Fire: Rural Metro
Police: MCSO
Right-of-Way:
13. The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)
Major Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name Half-width Existing Half-width Proposed Future Classification
R/W R/W
56th Street 40’ 65’ Local - Section
Montgomery Rd. 0’ 40’ Collector - Mid-Section
Adopted Plans:
14. Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted January 2016): The Comprehensive Plan
designates the site as Rural Development Area (0-1 d.u./ac.). Since the site is approx. 28
acres, the site is below the 40 acre threshold required to change the land use
designation.
15. City of Phoenix General Plan 2015 (adopted 2015): The City designates the site as
Residential (1-2 d.u./ac.). The proposed density of 2.0 d.u./ac. meets the City’s land use
classification.
Public Participation Summary:
16. The applicant complied with the requirements of the Citizen Review Process with the
required posting of the property and notification by first class mail to interested parties
and notification to adjacent property owners within 300’ of the subject site with both the
R1-10 RUPD and R1-18 RUPD zoning. The overall comments for both applications include
reconsideration of 1 acre or R1-35 zoned lots for keeping the existing Rural character of
area, the community does not support the proposed R1-18 RUPD zoning.
17. Staff has received numerous letters and phone calls expressing opposition to the
application from area residents. Petitions were also received regarding the original
zoning application. Staff received a total of 40 in support and 93 in opposition. The issues
raised include high density in an area designated as Rural, increased traffic, dust, impact
to the existing rural/equestrian lifestyle of the area. Other issues raised included increasing
the density for large scale tract homes behind a gated community wall which is a
transition to suburban zones. Traffic issues with existing roads in deplorable conditions,
excess traffic, environmental concerns and excessive noise were also identified. The
currently application has resulted in two letters in opposition. These concerns relate to
keep the property to the existing County land use designation of 1 du./ac., increase in
Z2019136
Page 8 of 12

density, impact to property values, single access point on 56th St., and increased traffic.
Staff notes that the neighbors submitted an e-mail with stipulations on September 16, 2020
to Supervisor Chucri’s Office related to the original R1-10 RUPD zoning application. These
stipulations/comments have been attached to the staff report, but are associated with
the previous application, not the amended R1-18 zoning application received in
November 2020, staff is not certain if these comments/stipulations are applicable. Staff
also received a petition with 70 signatures in opposition to the amended application with
the following items concerns:
Density – The R1-18 zoning is not compatible with Rural-43, with Shea asking for lots
as small as 10,000 sq. ft. The neighborhood would like to maintain the current Rural-
43 zoning district standards. The community is willing to discuss R1-35 plan with no
amended standards.
Drainage – Concerned the plan is utilizing the roads as drainage to route
stormwater to the southwest and across Montgomery Rd. The retention looks
inadequate for coverage along the southern boundary to Montgomery Rd. It
appears they used the old Floodplain Study and not the new revised flood study.
Traffic – Proposed 56 homes with current plan, The R1-35 zoning would
accommodate 34 – 35 homes. Shea has indicated that the development can
produce twice the traffic onto 56th St. without making any accommodations.
Lighting – Twice the number of homes will leave to twice the amount of lighting.
We prefer dark skies at night.
18. The applicant conducted another Citizen outreach regarding the amended R1-18 RUPD
application. A website was created www.56thandLoneMountain.com to provide the
information on request, zoning district standards, and subdivision layout. The website also
includes recordings of the virtual meetings. The applicant states in the Citizen Results
Report that there have been approximately 350 visits to the website. A letter was mailed
out on December 2, 2020 regarding the application to property owners within 300’ and
the Lone Mountain Ranch subdivision located to the east of the property. The applicant
also e-mailed approximately 60 neighbors and stakeholders on 12/7 and 12/14. Three
virtual GoToMeetings were held on 12/8 (30 attendees), 12/15 (15-20 attendees) and
12/16 (15-20 attendees) to discuss the proposed subdivision.
19. The results of the outreach included comments and concerns related to height of the
SFRs, improvements to 56th St., lot sizes reduced to 10,000 sq. ft., easement of 30’ for
Montgomery Rd. The applicant states as with the original application the primary
concerns are related to lot size and density. The applicant has stated the amended
application is related due to market demand and buyer preferences.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
20. N/A
Z2019136
Page 9 of 12

Staff Analysis:
21. The City of Phoenix has not provided comments on the amended zone change
application. The proposal of 2.0 d.u./ac. exceeds the County’s Vision 2030 Rural
Development Area (0-1 d.u./ac.) but meets the City of Phoenix General Plan which
designates the site as Residential (0-2 d.u./ac.). Staff notes the northeast Phoenix region
has been developing with higher densities to the west of 56th St. which includes Monte
Vista (R1-18), Bushwood (R1-18), and additional R1-18 properties located north of Lone
Mountain Rd.
22. The intergovernmental agreement for wastewater services are currently not finalized with
the cities. Staff is concerned about rezoning the site to R1-18 RUPD without the
agreements approved for utilities. In order to alleviate this issue, conditions have been
included to address that a will serve letter from the City of Phoenix for water and the IGA
or other document acceptable to Maricopa County for wastewater must be established
prior to final plat approval and the zoning approval will be conditional for a period of 5
years for the initial phase of development. If these timeframes are not met, the zoning
case could be scheduled for public hearings to consider reversion of the zoning. Staff
maintains its support of the zone change which will include service agreements for water
and wastewater from the cities to develop single family residential. Reviewing county
agencies do not have any objections to the zone change application.
Recommendation:
23. Staff recommends the Commission motion for Approval, subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘n’.
a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit
entitled “56th St. & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated December
2020 and stamped received December 27, 2020, except as modified by the
following conditions.
b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled “56th Street & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 20 pages, dated
December 14, 2020, and stamped received December 27, 2020, except as
modified by the following conditions.
c. The following R1-18 RUPD standards shall apply:
1. Max. Height: 30’, all lots limited to single story
2. Min. Front Yard: 20’ front loaded garage, 10’ side loaded garage or livable
area of dwelling unit.
3. Min. Side Yard: 5’
4. Min. Street-side Yard: 10’
5. Min. Rear Yard: 20’
6. Minimum Lot Area: 10,125 sq. ft.
7. Minimum Lot Width: 75’
8. Average Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 18,081 sq. ft.
9. Maximum Lot Coverage: 55%
10. Min. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces: 2
d. The total number of residential units shall not exceed 56.
Z2019136
Page 10 of 12

e. The developer shall provide a 25’ open space buffer on the northern perimeter of
the property to be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
f. The developer shall provide a 40’ landscape buffer on the north side of the
southern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowners
Association.
g. The developer shall provide a view fence on the southern perimeter of the
property.
h. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. The development of the site will pose significant challenges with respect to
storm water management. Without the submittal of a precise plan of
development, no development approval is inferred by this review,
including, but not limited to drainage design, access and roadway
alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans progress
and are submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement.
2. A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement
application (i.e. preliminary plat).
3. Dedication of right-of-way along 56th Street (section) and Montgomery
Road (mid-section) will be required as part of future entitlement (i.e. final
plat), unless otherwise waived by MCDOT.
4. If required for site development, the CLOMR application must be submitted
to the Flood Control District prior to or concurrent with any future
entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat).
5. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies
and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT
Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and
best practices at the time of application for construction.
i. Zoning approval is conditional per Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Article
304.6, and ARS § 11-814 for five (5) years within which time the initial subdivision
infrastructure permit or construction permit must be obtained. The applicant shall
submit a written report every five years from the date of Board of Supervisors
approval of Z2019136 which details the status of this project, including progress on
obtaining subdivision infrastructure and/or construction permits. The status report
to be administratively reviewed by Planning and Development with the ability to
administratively accept or to carry the status report to the Board of Supervisors
(Board), upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission
(Commission) for consideration of amendments or revocation of zoning for
undeveloped parcels. Status reports will be required until completion of the initial
subdivision infrastructure and/or construction permits for each zoning parcel (R1-
18 RUPD).
j. Prior to approval of the initial final plat, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa
County Planning and Development Department with the approved
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale that
is referenced in the February 26, 2020 letter issued by Brian K. Biesmeyer, Executive
Z2019136
Page 11 of 12

Director of Scottsdale Water, or other document acceptable to Maricopa County
which assures sewer service.
k. Prior to initial final plat approval, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department with a ‘will serve’ letter from the City of
Scottsdale or City of Phoenix for water service, or other document acceptable to
Maricopa County which assures water service.
l. Noncompliance with any condition herein or Maricopa County Regulation shall
be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as set forth in the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
m. The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in value if
the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance with
conditions.
n. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the
applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on
the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply
with any condition, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date
of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due
to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that
existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and
that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held
on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone
Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the
Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value
of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
Presented by: Rachel Applegate, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Zoning Exhibit (reduced 8.5”x11”, 1 page)
Narrative Report (20 pages)
Engineering Comments (2 pages)
MCESD Comments (1 page)
City of Scottsdale Water (1 page)
Comments from Neighbors submitted to Board September 16, 2020 (3 pages)
Opposition documents (12 pages)
Petition in opposition (17 pages)
Z2019136
Page 12 of 12

gQ]X )070*3809 LMMNOPQROST ZX[QN h?=i LMMNOPQTR lmnnm3o E…V| g†LV‡| j?Ak Ldd^X]] \X]P^OMROST k6 p3nn< :37;3*< ?(@> VQWXY ˆ|‰Š|_‹ q+* hrss.it => _`WWXR^` (?(@ ‹ ˆ|E…V| @A1(B u vwxyw CD ‹ QR ˆHŒH aKRb C. x;40*m,+* ˆŠz\ _Rc QTd Ž…ˆ ‚m,8*m/8 ˆ|_\|V‹LZ ZSTX eSfTRQOT i+6 )*+,, zQ^PXN 66 lkphvp.l6ywD (@@}A=}??(‚> LMMNOPQTR ( _Š\‘_…V ./*0,1 z^OWQ^`Y(@@}A=}??(~ (@@}A=}??(s> zbSTX{|WQON (2 344*+56 (@@}A=}??(ƒ„ D34 EFGHIHJK ,/3n0 @1€>(2A
! " # $% &'

56TH ST & LONE MOUNTAIN
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
f I
I FIGURE 2
l I RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN
I I OF DEVELOPMENT
l! " I
z CURRENT & PR□P□SED ZONING
I
I
9. I 1--
l NOTTO SCALE
f I N
1 Zone Change From Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD
11
f I OWNER/DEVELOPER PLANNING/ENGINEER
8 SHEA HOMES HILGARTWILSON
i 8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE. STE.250
I SUITE 350 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
l SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85258 TELEPHONE: (602) 490.0535
CONTACT: MATT TELBAN CONTACT: ROB GUBSER. AICP
f I
i UTILITY COMMITMENT TABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
I I
WATER CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ELEMENTARY CAVE CREEK UNIFIED
WASTEWATER CITY OF PHOENIX SCHOOL DISTRICT
i I ELECTRIC APS HIGH SCHOOL CAVE CREEK UNIFIED
t TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK SCHOOL DISTRICT
"I CABLE cox
-I NATURAL GAS SOUTHWEST GAS
J .
s - -
LEGEND/SITE SUMMARY
I
,; Project Boundary (Gross Area)
!
Gross Acreage: 28.2 Acres Proposed Zoning: R1·18 RUPD
Existing Zoning: RU-43 Proposed Lot Count: 56
Existing Land Use: Large Lot (1·2 DU/AC) Proposed Density 2.0 DU/AC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMENCING at a found Maricopa County bras cap accepted as the West Quarter corner
of said Section 21 from which a found 3 inch City of Phoenix brass cap in hand hole accepted
as the Northwest corner thereof bears North 00'03'00" West, 2645.70 feet;
Thence North 00°03'00" West, 661.43 feet along the west line of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 21;
Thence leaving said west line, North 89°48'39" East, 40.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence North 00°03'00" West, 280.71 feet along a line which Is 40.00 feet east of and
parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21:
Thence leaving said parallel line, North 89'49'12" East, 281.00 feet;
Thence North 00"03'00" West, 205.14 feet:
Thence South 89°49'12" West, 281.00 feet;
Thence North 00•03•00· West, 175.57 feet along a line which is 40.00 feet east of and
parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Thence leaving said parallel line, North 89°49'46" East, 1284.28 feet along the north line of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Northeast comer of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Thence south 00·02·24· East, 1321.99 feet along the east line of the southwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21:
Current Rl-18
Standards Thence South 89°47'31" West, 662.03 feet along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 18,000 the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Average Lot Area (sq. ft.)2 18,000
Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 120 Thence North 00'02'42" West, 661.21 feet along the west line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Minimum Lot Depth (ft.-) - 150 Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the Southeast corner of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 25
Maximum Building Height (ft.) 30/2-stories 30'/1-story Thence South 89°48'39" West, 622.08 feet along the south line of the Northwest Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the POINT OF
Setbacks BEGINNING.
Front Yard (ft.) 20 front loaded; 10' side
30 loaded garage or livable area
of dwelling unit 1 THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Side Yard (ft.) 10 5 · ,, NOVEMBER 2020
Street Side (ft.) 15 10 HW Project Number. 2078
Rear Yard (ft.) 30 20 HILGARTWILSON Project Managor: R GUBSER, AICP
1 20' front yard selback for fronl loaded garage, 10' front setback for side loaded garage or livable area of dwell in f"'OUU!l.111 I •LAH I IVilll\11!'¥ I MANACI OrawnBy:HW
unit, prov,ded from loaded garage retains 20' minimum selback from rig)lt-of-way. H•IL,-lll P'IIOlJU,M.MOlt NO , ,..ONtJl>/UMII --
2 Average lot area per dwelling unit - total area of lots and open spaces, excluding all public and private streets
divided b the total number of lots.

Road
Mountain
Lone
56th
Street
Road
Montgomery
Case Number Z2019136
56th Street & Lone Mountain
Rezone - Residential Unit Plan of Development
South of the SEC of 56th Street & Montgomery Road
Maricopa County, AZ
Z2019136 5th Submittal: December 14, 2020
4th Submittal: November 25, 2020
12/27/2020 4:26:48 PM 3rd Submittal: February 28, 2020
2nd Submittal: January 30, 2020
1st Submittal: November 26, 2019

Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2
II. Purpose of the Request ....................................................................................................................... 2
III. Description of the Proposal ................................................................................................................. 3
IV. Relationship to the Surrounding Properties ....................................................................................... 5
V. Location and Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 5
VI. Circulation System & Open Space ...................................................................................................... 5
VII. Project Phasing and Development Schedule ..................................................................................... 5
VIII. Community Facilities and Services ..................................................................................................... 6
A. Schools ............................................................................................................................................. 6
B. Parks ................................................................................................................................................. 6
C. Golf Courses ..................................................................................................................................... 6
D. Other Notable Places ....................................................................................................................... 6
IX. Public Utilities and Services ................................................................................................................ 7
A. Stormwater Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 7
B. Water ................................................................................................................................................ 7
C. Wastewater ....................................................................................................................................... 7
X. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 8
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map & City Limits
Figure 2 Current and Proposed Zoning
Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 4 Surrounding Zoning
Figure 5 Street Cross Sections
Figure 6 Conceptual Open Space
APPENDICES
Appendix A Legal Description and Exhibit
1

I. Introduction
Shea Homes©, part of the J.F. Shea Family of Companies, is one of the largest, private
homebuilders in the nation. Since its founding in 1968, Shea Homes has built more than
100,000 homes across the country. Over the past several years, Shea Homes has been
recognized as a leader in customer satisfaction with a reputation for design, quality and
customer service. Shea Homes builds new homes in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado,
Washington, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Texas.
The Arizona Division began in 1989 with the acquisition of Knoell Homes and expanded in the
late 1990’s after acquiring UDC Homes and has built more than 30,000 homes in the greater
Phoenix area.
Shea Homes has experience in all types of residential communities including single-family,
townhomes, active adult, and master planned communities. Recently they have begun
developing Azure adjacent to the Ritz Carlton in Paradise Valley, Aloravita in Peoria, and The
Reserves in Gilbert. Shea Homes is interested in continuing their legacy of building high quality
homes with this project, Symmetry (the “Project”), in north Phoenix.
Shea Homes requests a zone change with overlay from Rural-43 (“RU-43”) to R1-18
Residential Unit Plan of Development (“RUPD”) to allow for construction of a high quality, 56-
lot single family subdivision on an approximately 28 acres of unincorporated land generally
located ¼ mile south of the southeast corner of 56th Street and Lone Mountain Road (the
“Property”). The Property includes 6 parcels identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s
Office as APN 211-45-002D, 211-45-002F, 211-45-002X, 211-45-002Z, 211-45-315, and
211-45-317 (See Figure 1).
The Project is located in unincorporated Maricopa County (the “County”) and within the City of
Phoenix Planning Area. The Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2030, identifies the
Project as Rural Development, and Plan PHX, the City of Phoenix 2015 General Plan,
designates the Property as Residential 0-2 du/ac.
The Property itself is mostly vacant desert land with some small outbuildings. The proposal
serves as a compatible development to the residential subdivisions within the adjacent City of
Phoenix.
II. Purpose of the Request
Shea Homes’ request will transform this mostly vacant land into a high quality single-family
residential community called Symmetry. The Project proposes a maximum of 56, detached
single-family residential lots at a density of approximately 2.0 dwelling units per gross acre,
and will feature centralized open space with gathering area. The Project would add variety to
the lot sizes currently available in the area and increase the diversity of homeownership
opportunities. The current zoning is RU-43, and the request is to rezone the Property to R1-18
RUPD, using the flexibility provided by the RUPD overlay district to develop a high-quality
community. Table 1 below summarizes the Project data.
Table 1 on following page
2

Table 1: Project Data
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 211-45-002D
211-45-002F
211-45-002X
211-45-002Z
211-45-315
211-45-317
Current Land Use Mostly vacant with some outbuildings
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Rural Development
Designation
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Rural Development
Designation
Current Zoning RU-43
Proposed Zoning R1-18 RUPD
Gross Property Area 28.081 acres
Maximum Number of Lots 56
Gross Density 2.0 du/ac
Supervisor District #2 – Steve Chucri
III. Description of the Proposal
Symmetry is a proposed neighborhood of a maximum of 56 single-family detached homes.
The proposed density is approximately 2.0 dwellings per gross acre. This request is to rezone
the Property from RU-43 to R1-18 RUPD (See Figure 2). “The purpose of the Residential Unit
Plan of Development is to allow large-scale residential development where variation in
development standards is warranted due to topography, innovation or sustainable project
design, or other considerations.” (Article 1002.1 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance). The
purpose of varying the development standards for the project is to create a set of development
standards specific for the Project and comparable with the development standards for other
single-family developments in the general area.
The proposed minimum lot dimensions are 75’ wide by 135’ deep with a minimum lot size of
10,125 square feet. The Project will include approximately 9.9 acres of open space, which is
35% of the gross area. Refer to Table 2 R1-18 RUPD Development Standards for specific
development standards compared to the base R1-18 zoning district (modifications are shown
in bold). A Conceptual Site Plan is included at Figure 3.
Table 2 on following page
3

Table 2: R1-18 RUPD Development Standards
Rezoning and RUPD Justification
The proposed zoning district and RUPD overlay will enable the site to develop consistent
with the current residential markets in the area including Tatum Ranch, Monte Vista,
Lone Mountain, and Scottsdale Vista Estates.
Coupled with the rezone request, the RUPD overlay will allow for modification from the
base R1-18 zoning district for up to nine (9) of the development standards, including lot
size, lot width, lot coverage, and front and side yard setbacks.
The decrease in the R1-18 minimum lot size from 18,000 sq. ft. to 10,125 sq. ft. and
increase of average lot area from 18,000 sq. ft. to 18,081 sq. ft., coupled with the reduced
lot width of 75’ from 120’ and request for increased lot coverage, will add variety to the lot
sizes available in the area and increase the diversity of home ownership opportunities that
are consistent with the recent growth in the northeast valley. This design approach is
also consistent with homeowners’ desires for yards with reduced maintenance
obligations. The increase lot coverage allows for greater square footage in single-story
homes, which are popular with homebuyers in all stages of life. Additionally, these
modifications allow for a varied streetscape and more innovative housing product.
Moreover, the front yard setback modification is a slight adjustment to accommodate the
option for a side loaded garage, ability to bring the living space forward, and larger front
porches. The front yard setback differentiation will also create a more visually dynamic
and aesthetically appealing streetscape which is popular among home buyers.
4

IV. Relationship to the Surrounding Properties
The Property is located on the east side of 56th Street approximately ¼ mile south of Lone
Mountain Road. The east side of 56th Street is unincorporated Maricopa County and the west
side is within the City of Phoenix. Much of the development on the east side of 56th Street is
single family residential consisting of wildcat subdivisions. The Monte Vista subdivision is
located at the southwest corner of 56th Street and Montgomery Road has multiple lot sizes,
including some as small as 55’ x 145’ and 60’ x 135’. Table 3, below, indicates the zoning,
land use designation, and current use of the surrounding property (See Figure 4).
Table 3: Surrounding Property Information
Comprehensive Plan
Location Zoning Land Use Current Use
Designation
North RU-43 Rural Development Large lot single-family
East RU-43 & RU-43 RUPD Rural Development Large lot single-family
South RU-43 Rural Development Large lot single-family
West RE-35 Vacant desert land
(City of Phoenix) & Residential 0-2 du/ac &
R1-18 Monte Vista
V. Location and Accessibility
Access to the Project will be taken from 56th Street via a single median separated point of
ingress/egress. Emergency access is provided via Wildcat Drive, which is a public street in the
Lone Mountain Ranch subdivision abutting the eastern boundary of the Project.
VI. Circulation System & Open Space
The entrance to the Project will be off 56th Street. The neighborhood is planned to be gated
and the entrance will be constructed with entry and exit lanes separated by a landscape
median to provide a sense of arrival for homeowners and their guests. Local streets within the
neighborhood will be private. An example of the proposed private street section is included as
Figure 5.
A neighborhood amenity will be located off the entry road towards the center of the community.
9.9 acres of open space is being provided, which is 35% of the overall land area. See Figure
6.
VII. Project Phasing and Development Schedule
A phasing plan has not been established at this time; however, it is anticipated that this
development will be built in one phase. The community is expected to be complete by March
2022.
5

VIII. Community Facilities and Services
A. Schools
The Project is located within the Cave Creek Unified School District #93 and within the
boundaries of Lone Mountain Elementary School, Sonoran Trails Middle School, and Cactus
Shadows High School.
B. Parks
Phoenix Sonoran Preserve – 5 miles
The Phoenix Sonoran Preserve is a 9,600-acre park operated by the City of Phoenix. It contains
36 miles of trail ranging from easy to difficult.
Cave Creek Regional Park – 7 miles
The Cave Creek Regional Park is a 2,922-acre park operated by the Maricopa County Parks
Department. Cave Creek Regional Park offers 16 miles of hiking and biking trails, camping,
and horseback riding. Elevation ranges from 2,000’ above sea level to 3060’ above sea level.
Brown’s Ranch – 10 miles
Over 1,200 acres with miles of trails for hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding.
Cave Buttes Recreational Area – 12 miles
The Cave Buttes Recreation Area is located in North Phoenix just west of the intersection of
Cave Creek Road and Jomax. The area is administered by the Maricopa County Flood Control
District and is home to a number of dams and dikes that control flooding from drainages of
Cave Creek. The park was once part of the City of Phoenix park system but has been closed to
the public for decades. Because the site is closed to the public, the park contains some of the
most pristine mountain and desert landscapes in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Access to
the area is through orienteering events put on by the Greater Phoenix Orienteering Club.
C. Golf Courses
There are a number of golf courses in the immediate area including:
• Tatum Ranch Golf Club – 3 miles
• Boulders Golf Club – 5 miles
• Legend Trail Golf Club – 7 miles
• Dove Valley Ranch Golf Club – 4 miles
• Terravita Golf Club – 5 miles
• Whisper Rock Golf Club – 4 miles
• Desert Forest Golf Club – 7 miles
• Desert Highlands Golf Club – 9 miles
• Desert Mountain Golf Club – 9 miles
• Troon North Golf Club – 8 miles
• Pinnacle Peak Country Club – 9 miles
• Greyhawk Golf Club – 10 miles
D. Other Notable Places
• Desert Ridge Marketplace – 7.5 miles
• Mayo Clinic – 9.5 miles
• Musical Instrument Museum – 9 miles
• Reach 11 Sports Complex – 9 miles
6

IX. Public Utilities and Services
Utilities and service providers for the Project are listed below.
• Water: City of Scottsdale
• Wastewater: City of Phoenix
• Electrical: APS
• Telephone: Century Link
• Cable: Cox Communications
• Natural Gas: Southwest Gas
• Police: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department
• Fire: Rural Metro
A. Stormwater Drainage
The area surrounding the Property generally slopes to the southwest at approximately 2% to
3%. The Site is impacted by offsite flows approaching the site from the north and east. The
offsite flows that impact the site are conveyed in a natural wash across the north boundary of
the Project and a proposed channel along the east and south boundary of the Project that will
convey the offsite runoff around the proposed lots and return the runoff to its historic location
before it exits the Project. Offsite flows will be conveyed in the proposed streets
within the Project. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
04013C0890L, revised October 16, 2013, the Project is located within Zone X. FEMA defines
Zone X as areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas
protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. The northern edge of the property is
impacted by a major wash that is pending designation as flood hazard Zone AE. FEMA defines
Zone AE as the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided.
The Project will be graded to provide the necessary storm water storage for the 100 year, 2
hour storm retention requirement. The streets within the Project will be designed to
convey on-site runoff to the storm water storage basins. The storm water storage basins
will be designed to drain into the existing washes to preserve the historic vegetation and
habitat for the wildlife.
B. Water
Water service for the Project will be provided by the City of Scottsdale. The Project is located
in pressure zone 8 of the City’s water system. Existing water infrastructure adjacent to the
Project includes an 8-inch and 12-inch water main in 56th Street west of the Project, a 12-inch
water main in Montgomery Road south of the Project, and an 8-inch water line in Wildcat Drive
on the east side of the Project. Potable water will be distributed throughout the Community
through an onsite looped network of 8-inch water mains that will connect to the existing water
mains adjacent to the Project. The City of Scottsdale has a 100-year assured water supply.
C. Wastewater
Wastewater service for the Project will be provided by the City of Phoenix, in coordination with
the City of Scottsdale. There is an existing City of Phoenix 8-inch gravity sewer line near the
southwest corner of 56th Street and Montgomery Road. A network of 8-inch onsite sewer
mains, designed to City of Scottsdale standards, will convey wastewater flows from each lot to
56th Street on the west side of the Project. Proposed 8-inch sewer mains in 56th Street and
Montgomery Road will convey wastewater flows to the existing 8-inch sewer main
approximately 400-west of 56th Street. The onsite sewer mains will be designed to the City of
7

Scottsdale standards and the connection to the gravity sewer line will be designed to City of
Phoenix standards.
X. Conclusion
Shea Homes is excited to present a vibrant and diverse neighborhood in a premier part of the
Valley. Shea Homes has earned its reputation for beautiful homes and exceptional
communities, with Symmetry being the latest to its noteworthy lineup. Per our public
participation outreach efforts with this new request, we are adding the following conditions to
our proposed development plan. They are as follows:
• The total number of residential units shall not exceed 56.
• All residential lots shall be limited to single-story homes.
• The developer shall provide a 25-foot open space buffer on the northern perimeter of the
property to be maintained by the Homeowner Association.
• The developer shall provide a 40-foot landscape buffer on the north side of the southern
perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowner Association.
• The developer shall provide a view fence on the southern perimeter of the property.
The development team is committed to building a quality Project, and respectfully requests
favorable consideration of this zone change request.
8

FIGURES


56TH ST & LONE MOUNTAIN
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
f I
I FIGURE 2
l I RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN
I I OF DEVELOPMENT
l! " I
z CURRENT & PR□P□SED ZONING
I
I
9. I 1--
l NOTTO SCALE
f I N
1 Zone Change From Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD
11
f I OWNER/DEVELOPER PLANNING/ENGINEER
8 SHEA HOMES HILGARTWILSON
i 8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE. STE.250
I SUITE 350 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
l SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85258 TELEPHONE: (602) 490.0535
CONTACT: MATT TELBAN CONTACT: ROB GUBSER. AICP
f I
i UTILITY COMMITMENT TABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
I I
WATER CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ELEMENTARY CAVE CREEK UNIFIED
WASTEWATER CITY OF PHOENIX SCHOOL DISTRICT
i I ELECTRIC APS HIGH SCHOOL CAVE CREEK UNIFIED
t TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK SCHOOL DISTRICT
"I CABLE cox
-I NATURAL GAS SOUTHWEST GAS
J .
s - -
LEGEND/SITE SUMMARY
I
,; Project Boundary (Gross Area)
!
Gross Acreage: 28.2 Acres Proposed Zoning: R1·18 RUPD
Existing Zoning: RU-43 Proposed Lot Count: 56
Existing Land Use: Large Lot (1·2 DU/AC) Proposed Density 2.0 DU/AC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMENCING at a found Maricopa County bras cap accepted as the West Quarter corner
of said Section 21 from which a found 3 inch City of Phoenix brass cap in hand hole accepted
as the Northwest corner thereof bears North 00'03'00" West, 2645.70 feet;
Thence North 00°03'00" West, 661.43 feet along the west line of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 21;
Thence leaving said west line, North 89°48'39" East, 40.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence North 00°03'00" West, 280.71 feet along a line which Is 40.00 feet east of and
parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21:
Thence leaving said parallel line, North 89'49'12" East, 281.00 feet;
Thence North 00"03'00" West, 205.14 feet:
Thence South 89°49'12" West, 281.00 feet;
Thence North 00•03•00· West, 175.57 feet along a line which is 40.00 feet east of and
parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Thence leaving said parallel line, North 89°49'46" East, 1284.28 feet along the north line of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Northeast comer of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Thence south 00·02·24· East, 1321.99 feet along the east line of the southwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21:
Current Rl-18
Standards Thence South 89°47'31" West, 662.03 feet along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 18,000 the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Average Lot Area (sq. ft.)2 18,000
Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 120 Thence North 00'02'42" West, 661.21 feet along the west line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Minimum Lot Depth (ft.-) - 150 Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the Southeast corner of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21;
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 25
Maximum Building Height (ft.) 30/2-stories 30'/1-story Thence South 89°48'39" West, 622.08 feet along the south line of the Northwest Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the POINT OF
Setbacks BEGINNING.
Front Yard (ft.) 20 front loaded; 10' side
30 loaded garage or livable area
of dwelling unit 1 THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Side Yard (ft.) 10 5 · ,, NOVEMBER 2020
Street Side (ft.) 15 10 HW Project Number. 2078
Rear Yard (ft.) 30 20 HILGARTWILSON Project Managor: R GUBSER, AICP
1 20' front yard selback for fronl loaded garage, 10' front setback for side loaded garage or livable area of dwell in f"'OUU!l.111 I •LAH I IVilll\11!'¥ I MANACI OrawnBy:HW
unit, prov,ded from loaded garage retains 20' minimum selback from rig)lt-of-way. H•IL,-lll P'IIOlJU,M.MOlt NO , ,..ONtJl>/UMII --
2 Average lot area per dwelling unit - total area of lots and open spaces, excluding all public and private streets
divided b the total number of lots.

©
Copyright, hilgartwilson 56th ST & LONE MOUNTAIN
2020 - This plan
document MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
set is the sole
property of hilgartwilson. FIGURE 3
No alterations to ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
these plans, other
than adding "as-built" RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN
information, are alowed by 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH 56TH OF DEVELOPMENT
anyone.
25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FCDMC FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN
160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160' 160'
RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/ RETENTION/
OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE N 1" = 80' (24X36)
(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)
OWNER/DEVELOPER PLANNING/ENGINEER
SHEA HOMES HILGARTWILSON
8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE, STE.250
SUITE 350 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85258 TELEPHONE: (602) 490-0535
CONTACT: MATT TELBAN CONTACT: ROB GUBSER, AICP
WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT WILDCAT DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR UTILITY COMMITMENT TABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
WATER CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ELEMENTARY CAVE CREEK UNIFIED
55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' ELECTRIC WASTEWATER CITY APS OF PHOENIX HIGH SCHOOL CAVE SCHOOL CREEK DISTRICT UNIFIED
TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK SCHOOL DISTRICT
CABLE COX
NATURAL GAS SOUTHWEST GAS
ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY
MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION MONUMENTATION
LEGEND
GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED GATED ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY PROJECT BOUNDARY (GROSS AREA)
85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' 85'-135' COMMUNITY GATHERING AREA
NOTES:
PARK AMENITIES MAY INCLUDE:
· ACTIVE AREAS AND PASSIVE TURF
AREAS
· SHADED TOT LOT
· RAMADA / PICNIC AREA
55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55'
132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132' 132'
40
MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD
THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
DECEMBER 2020
HW Project Number: 2078
Project Manager: R GUBSER, AICP
Drawn By: HW
2141 E. PHOENIX, HIGHLAND AZ 85016 AVE., STE. 250 P: 602.490.0535 www.HILGARTWILSON.com / F: 602.325.0161
U:\2000\2078\2078.01 - Shea Homes\PLANNING\ENTITLEMENT\MARICOPA COUNTY\REZONE\4th Submittal\EXHIBITS\FIG 3- CONCEPTUAL 12/15/2020 SITE PLAN.dwg 9:32:34 AM




APPENDIX




Maricopa County
Planning & Development Department
Engineering Plan Review
Date: December 23, 2020
Robert Fedorka, P.E.
Planning & Development
501 North 44th Street, Suite 200 Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager, Department of Planning &
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
Phone: (602) 506-7151 Development
Fax: (602) 506-8762
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Email address: Attn: Rachel Applegate, Sr. Planner, Planning & Development Services
Bob.Fedorka@Maricopa.gov
From: Robert Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Supervisor, Planning &
Development Services
cc: Michael Norris, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning & Development
Subject: Z2019136 Zone Change (to R1-18 RUPD) – Without a Plan of
Development (Symmetry)
(E4 Memo)
Job Site Address: NEC Montgomery Road and 56th Street
APN(s): 211-45-002D, 002F, 002X, 002Z, 315 & 317
This application is to specify zoning for future development and does not include a
Plan of Development.
PND engineering plan review (DPR, FCD and PND Transportation) has reviewed the
5th submittal of the Zone Change application routed for review on 12/23/2020 (as
emailed by the applicant) and has no objections subject to the following conditions:
1. The development of this site will pose significant challenges with respect to storm
water management. Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no
development approval is inferred by this review, including, but not limited to
drainage design, access and roadway alignments. These items will be addressed as
development plans progress and are submitted to the County for further review
and/or entitlement.
2. A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement application
(i.e. preliminary plat).
3. Dedication of right-of-way along 56th Street (section) and Montgomery Road (mid-
section) will be required as part of future entitlement (i.e. final plat), unless
otherwise waived by MCDOT.
4. If required for site development, the CLOMR application must be submitted to the
Flood Control District prior to or concurrent with any future entitlement application
(i.e. preliminary plat).

5. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205
of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards;
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual;
and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department
Water & Waste Management Division
Subdivision Planning Program Infrastructure & DATE: December 22, 2020
1001 N. Central Avenue #150
Phoenix, Phone: (602) Arizona 372-2907 85004 TO : Rachel Applegate, Planning & Development Dept.
Fax: (602) 506-5813 Senior Planner
TDD 602 506 6704
FROM: Souren Naradikian, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: RUPD rezone from RU-43 to R1-18. Z2019136
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has received
documentation for RUPD rezone from RU-43 to R1-18 at APN # 211-45-002D, 211-
45-002F, 211-45-002X, 211-45-002Z, 211-45-315, and 211-45-317.
According to the documents submitted, City of Scottsdale will provide potable water
and City of Phoenix will provided sanitary sewer services. ATC for sewer and water is
required prior to final plat approval.
Based on the above, MCESD raise no concern to this project to the Planning &
Development Department in Accela Automation on December 22, 2020.
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project.
Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and
Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report. Other Maricopa
County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will be
made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may
need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review
of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of application.


From: Jen Pokorski (PND)
To: Darren V. Gérard (PND); Matthew Holm (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: FW: Neighborhood Comments and concerns for 28 ac development
Date: Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:22:55 AM
Attachments: Stipulations for 28 ac.docx
The neighbors surrounding Symmetry provided the attached comments.
Rachel – can you add them to the case file so we have a record in case Symmetry is resurrected?
Thanks!
From: Jack Farmer <jack@santolinafarm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:53 PM
To: Steve Chucri (BOS) <Steve.Chucri@Maricopa.Gov>; Nicole Bendle (BOS)
<Nicole.Bendle@Maricopa.Gov>; Page Gonzales (BOS) <Page.Gonzales@maricopa.gov>; Jen
Pokorski (PND) <Jen.Pokorski@Maricopa.Gov>; AZ Cakes, Elizabeth <azcakes@mac.com>; Gregory
Harmon <gregharmon@msn.com>
Subject: Neighborhood Comments and concerns for 28 ac development

1. Density needs to be compatible with the surrounding area in this “Section” of MCC land,
660 ac, and other adjoining MCC Sections. The Maricopa County 2030 Plan states 0 to 1.5
homes average density for this area, North East county area. Shea Homes was proposing
twice the density to 2.7 homes per ac, which is a (No Go) Zoning plan.
 This is Maricopa County and not an Island within another City authority. City of Phoenix
is across 56th Street to West, a 38 ac Desert Park across the street from 28 ac. City of
Scottsdale is 1 mile East at 64th Street. City of Scottsdale is only supplying Water
Service to MCC homes. Most of this North Scottsdale area is large Lot Development, 1+
ac lots. Our MCC Neighborhoods are not in any City with any comparison to them. The
Neighborhood Community ( Citizens Review Process ) Plan should not include any City
properties owners considerations, even if within the 300 ft limit, as they are not MCC
residents.
 Previous Shea Homes Plan for 2+ houses per ac did not have Any Support within MCC,
(where we all live). There were NO letters of support within the Maricopa County
Sections of land surrounding the past28 ac Re Zoning Application, noted in Appeal.
See Our Maximum density support below.
 All (Adjoining ) 17 Property Owners, except Sellers, are Opposed to any Higher density
Re Zoning as it does not fit the Community area or the MCC 2030 Plan. All Property
Owners (within 300 feet notice area) in MCC, except Sellers, are Opposed to any Re
Zoning. See Master Opposition Letter submitted to Commissioners with 36 signatures,
surrounding the 28 ac.
2. Compatible Density for 28 ac.
The Neighborhood will support 35 homes or less on the 28 ac.
 We calculated the MCC‐2030 Plan max at 1.5 dua X 28 ac=42 homes Vs R‐43 or 1 ac per
home at 1dua X 28=28 OR 42+28=70/2 “averaged” calculation to ( 35 ) homes on 28 ac
that will be compatible with the neighborhoods, mostly all 1+ ac homes.
Maybe R‐43‐with Planned Residential Development PRD Plan, If it works.
 Any Proposed 28 ac development will need to be all single‐story homes. This 28 ac
property is raised in the center and will not be compatible with 2 story homes. Standard
single‐story R‐43 height required.
3. Open Space Buffering.
 The ROW for Montgomery Street, used as Buffering, included with the Open Space 28
ac requirement, that includes the North 50 Ft for Montgomery at the South Side of 28
ac as Open Space (Shea Homes), should require that the South Half of Montgomery
(beyond 28 ac) to be paved with walking / bike path to 56th Street.
OR,
 AS the MCC plan is now, with Montgomery being a quarter section road that should be
equal split ROW (80 ft ) as required for all other Montgomery property owners going
East from 56th Street to 64th Street. The Planned ROW Street should remain as noted in

area MCC 2030 General Plan, unless it is agreed to be included in any Open Space, with
Neighborhood consent. Shea Homes was planning to cut off Montgomery ROW.
 Any proposed Children's Playground or exercise buffering areas will be (within) the
development and not next too property owners that will oppose plan.
4. Wash Drainage on the North Side of development will affect the adjoining North Side
Neighbors, pushing wash water onto their property. This North Wash is on the MCC
Flood Plan/Fan 5 that needs to have it’s own 30 ft setback for 100 yr flood zone, not
flooding neighbors to the North. The last proposed Shea Development shows Lots on
North edge of property with no setback for drainage. The last Applicant’s Plan also
showed elimination of the Center 28 ac Property Wash. Where does that Wash Water
go? Where will detention / retention of wash water be held? Since this area is “Wash
Water” sensitive, the Neighbors want to be included in the Drainage Plan Review. It
should also be noted that the Flood Control Department will be updating this Wash Fan
5 area wash water calculations in next few months, affecting this wash for development.
We the neighbors, need to be involved.
5. The Shea Homes Development Building Perimeter Set Back distance was not compatible
with surrounding homes, mostly on 1.5 ac or more, with building set back distances of
50 feet or more. Any New Development will be neighborhood supported having new
homes 30 ft setbacks at perimeter, to be more compatible with neighbors.
6. Traffic Plan for Development.
The Traffic plan for any development will need public review. The surrounding streets
will be impacted by new homeowners probably having 2 or more cars adding to traffic.
 Montgomery traffic issue will need some agreement unless going with MCC 2030 Plan.
 Wild Cat will need some agreement using the HOA roads on the East side of 28 ac.
 Entrance and Exit for new development is a concern of the Neighbors.
7. Your comments??

From: Pete Langlois
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Z2019136 re zone
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:08:41 PM
Hi Rachel - I just want to give you my feedback on the above rezone. I live 2 blocks away from
this site and can see it from my property. I can see no good reason to allow this rezone - the
county zoned this R1 (1 dwelling per acre) and I will accept nothing else.
Everyone who lives here bought here for the life style that the 1 acre zoning provides.
I don't understand what zoning laws are about if big money can change them anytime they
want.
Thank you,
Pete Langlois
5641 E Windstone Trl

From: Jen Pokorski (PND)
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Fwd: 56th & Lone Mountain by Shea Homes Proposed Development
Date: Friday, December 18, 2020 9:34:47 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Nicole Bendle (BOS)" <Nicole.Bendle@maricopa.gov>
Date: December 18, 2020 at 9:30:05 AM MST
To: "Jen Pokorski (PND)" <Jen.Pokorski@maricopa.gov>, "Kathryn Garcia
(PND)" <Kathryn.Garcia@maricopa.gov>
Cc: "Andy Linton (COA)" <Andy.Linton@maricopa.gov>
Subject: FW: 56th & Lone Mountain by Shea Homes Proposed Development
Please
note Christine Taylor’s comments below regarding the 56th & Lone Mountain
proposal and please add her to the stakeholder’s list for future correspondence and
updates.
Thank you,
Nicole Bendle | Deputy Chief of Staff | Supervisor Steve Chucri, District 2 |
Maricopa County
301 W. Jefferson Street | 10th floor | Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 506-7431 | Email: Nicole.Bendle@Maricopa.Gov
From: Nicole Bendle (BOS) <Nicole.Bendle@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 9:26 AM
To: cgptaylor@gmail.com
Subject: FW: 56th & Lone Mountain by Shea Homes Proposed Development
Christine,

Thank you for taking the time to email our office in regard to the zoning case regarding
56th & Lone Mountain. We have shared your email with our Planning & Zoning
Department to duly note your position. We will keep you updated on any future
correspondence or information regarding this zoning case. Once again, we appreciate
your input on this issue.
Sincerely,
Nicole Bendle | Deputy Chief of Staff | Supervisor Steve Chucri, District 2 | Maricopa
County
301 W. Jefferson Street | 10th floor | Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 506-7431 | Email: Nicole.Bendle@Maricopa.Gov
From: Mervyn Taylor <cgptaylor@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:56 PM
To: Steve Chucri (BOS) <Steve.Chucri@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: 56th & Lone Mountain by Shea Homes Proposed Development
Dear Supervisor Chucri,
I have just been made aware of the subject proposed development and I wish to share
my concerns. Hopefully, I'm not too late. I live in the neighborhood and will be
impacted by the project.
My thoughts after reviewing carefully Shea Home's webpage describing the project:
1. Rezoning from Rural-43 to R1-18. This is a huge increase in density to the site. The
county zoned it Rural-43 for a reason. The proposal does not state the rationale for
such a large increase in density. Despite some minor buffers the surrounding
landowners who bought and developed their properties with the Rural-43 zoning will
be significantly impacted by the project and this will likely have a negative impact on
their property value.
2. Rezoning to R1-18 and then some. This further zoning request by Shea Homes seems
particularly aggressive from the R1-18 requirements: they want to change everything ;
minimum setbacks, % of lot developed, minimum lot size, etc They provide no rationale
for these except the request will allow them to build more homes. At an absolute
minimum, the County should request a proposal that DO NOT INCLUDE any variances
from the R1-18 requirements. If so, will Shea Homes find this a profitable project? Why
are they proposing every variance to the R1-18 zoning?
3. Only one entrance/exit to the development and dumping the traffic onto 56th street
without the benefit of a stop sign on 56th. This road continues to become busier and

proposing such an entrance/exit seems irresponsible from a safety/traffic standpoint.
At a minimum, there s/b a dedicated rt. turn lane and lft turn lane into the project from
56th. This may be planned, and if so, I assume the developer will pay the cost of such
road improvements.
So, in general I believe the site should be left zoned Rural-43, but if the County believes
it "needs" to approve higher density development on this site, please do not allow
further variances in the R1-18 requirements. A 3100 sf + home with side setbacks of 5',
as an example, creates a very high density neighborhood incompatible with the
surroundings.
Regards,
Christine Taylor

>? CDDEF LJFM /NN /332+6-)P3; :;;9)@A2B O,3) GFHIJK u,-) >2RP ]R)Y >)P9 :;;9) :;;9) <^_`^a_ <g ^_`^a_ bcc deHF fKeDF 72;3 O2-)g5)RPB) ()*+,-) /00*)123)4 52+6)* 7,1 893 )-2R* :;;9) R;;9) <
V9W-R3 V)2A+6 7,,B90 XP,Y*)N1) [A,\)+3; 5)0,A3; T9;3,- 7,1 O)Q3 SNR3 T*,;) T*,P)UT,0? 893 /+3R,P :;;9); :;;9) :;;9) 5)0,A3; Z2;) < V9W-R33)N 8A12PRh23R,Pg :Pi,A-23R,Pg s);+AR03R,Pg sRtR;R,P V9W\)+3g TR3Rh)P Z?g :sg [*2PPRP1 u)AA)A24 [Oss)tV)At V6)2 :3 +,P+)APRP1 T,--9PR3? O8@ : W)1 62; 6,-); (/O@ ?,9 W))P V9;2P2 2PN O8@ A)h,PRP1 s)t)*,0-)P3 @8 WA,9163 T2;) ,ii n s)t)*,0-)P3 [6,P) ,P 7:]S S-2R* 3, sRQR)332 q`m^_^rl +62P1) `vns)+n`m`m jRA;3 :O [)A-R3 3, V6)2 O9-W)Aglm`nl_mn`a_m /NNA);;g\A)RPB)`mm^o6,3-2R*p+,- -? sSOVS O2-)gkR** 2PN 36R; u,-); 6R;3,A? 233)P3R,P <gq`m^_^rl V)AtR+); av36 3, [8[y7/@:8O vg`w[> 2 V3A))3p P)2A h,P) 3623 36) 5vrz () 36)A) lm` 6,-) /5S/Vp W,9163 amln^^vx R; : 3, ,YP W) RP 36R; 2 RP h,PRP1 36) 2A)2 6R;3,A? >8O@S]:V@/ W)+29;) -))3RP1 Y) N)32R*; N,
>8O@S]:V@/ lm`nl_mn`a_m A);RN)P3; )PN)2t,Ap @62PB kR** @6R; @6)A) 5)RPB) R; R; ?,9 O8@ 0*)P3? 2P3R+R023)N [*)2;) i,A @uS 8(OS5 ?,9A ,i @:>S N,P|3 0A,0)A3? +,P;RN)A23R,P4 i,A /Os A9RP 36) ,93;RN) [7/TS R3 i939A) i,A 2** 3, ,i ,i ,i W) 36R; 36R; 36) Tu/O{:O{ 2A)2 +,--9PR3?p Ty55SO@ 3623 /Os V6)2 ,YP)A; 5y:O:O{ u,-); RP 36R; -2? Y623 2A)2p 32B) 36) ,P 36R;
@,32* /N\ sRtR;R,P T,P32+3 /;;R1P)N @R-) @R-) V9W@?0) V9W@?0) V9W@?0) V9W@?0) 80)Pg 80)Pg @?0)g @?0)g @,g ^g `g rg vg S-2R* s)t)*,0-)P3 T9;3,-)AV)AtR+)4 ^lgmr ^lgmr [*2PPRP1 V)P3 iA,- -? V)AtR+); R[6,P) [Os ,P `vns)+n`m`m vg`w[> N)32R*;
}FD~eDJ€JKJH ‚E~~eƒHJ„ }FDeKEHJe deHFD :;;9) O)Q3 C…e C…e [AR,AR3?g V3239;g /+3R,Pg >)NR9- [*2PPRP1 q,PRP1 Z9R*NRP1 [*2P [*2P ,P 5)tR)Y 6R;3,A? `vns)+n`m`m 5)tR)Y ,P ,P `vns)+n`m`m `vns)+n`m`m agml[> vgv`[> vg`w[> N)32R*; N)32R*; N)32R*;
†ID‡ ˆII„Fƒ !" # $ bcc @2;B deHF %& ' /;;R1P)N@, fKeDF T,-0*)3)N @R-)

!" # $ %& '

>? CDDEF LJFM /NN /332+6-)P3; :;;9)@A2B O,3) GFHIJK x,-) >2RP ]R)Y >)P9 :;;9) :;;9) <^_`^a^ <g ^_`^a^ bcc deHF fKeDF 72;3 O2-)gjPN)AY,,N ()*+,-) /00*)123)4 52+6)* 7,1 893 )-2R* :;;9) R;;9) <
V9W-R3 V)2A+6 7,,B90 XP,Y*)N1) [A,\)+3; 5)0,A3; T9;3,- 7,1 O)Q3 SNR3 T*,;) T*,P)UT,0? 893 /+3R,P :;;9); :;;9) :;;9) 5)0,A3; Z2;) < V9W-R33)N 8A12PRh23R,Pg :Pi,A-23R,Pg s);+AR03R,Pg sRtR;R,P V9W\)+3g TR3Rh)P Z?g :sg [*2PPRP1 /P2?24 [Oss)tV)At T9;3,-)A s)2A / *2PN 2A)2 : +,-RP1 ;RN)n A);0)+3i9**? A);RN)P3R2* 3623 |+2;) VRA;y l,6P 2PN ,93 x2; R; ,P <o`p^_^qrn} s)t)*,0-)P3 ,P3, +9AA)P3*? u 0*2P A)z9);3 T,P;)AP; s)t)*,0-)P3 `aus)+u`p`p [6,P) S-2R* vr36 62; kRA;3 [)A-R3 O9-W)AgOU/ /NNA);;g\,N?-9m1-2R*n+,- h,P)N 3623 W))P ;3A))3 O2-)gl)PPRi)A /W,93 6R;3,A? ?,9 <go`p^_^qr A)u;9W-R33)N V)AtR+); vgvw[> 5{q 2PN o,PRP1 A)\)+3 3, 2 ;-2** -9+6 36R; [A,0,;2* rp`uvpruravw ` i,A ;-2**)A 0A,0,;2* *2P) 36R; A,2N 2A)2 *,3; 2; YR36 -)2PRP1 R3 YR36 Y,9*N 6R;3,A? P, 2 A)z9);3 ;6,9*N)A; 093 6R16 3,, N)P;R3? 3, -2P? ,P A)uh,P) )R36)A 3, +2A; N)32R*; 36)
P)R16W,A6,,N @6) -2N) : P,3 P)R16W,A6,,N YR36 2P V3A))34 -) iAR)PN*? A)h,PRP1n 5)h,PRP1 ;3A))3 2*;, )Q3A2 3, +,-0*)3)*? ;9AA,9PNRP1 P)R16W,A; Y2P3 *);; ;R1P4 ;,936 Y) *2N? W9AN)P 36R; N);RA2W*) 62t) 3, 2; ,i 2PN 2A)2 W9R*3 2PN ;2?4 2 >,P31,-)A?n RP 2++9A23)n ;))P ,P P)R16W,A4 0A,0)A3R);4 : 36) NRN ;R1P)N *2;3 3, W? ;)AtR+); W? 2A)2 ;9+6 2 P,3 [9*3) ?)2A 36R; N)+A)2;) V6) R3 RPNR+23) 3, : ;-2** 6R16uN)P;R3? W2;)N 6,-); 2 ;)) h,P) RP @6R; ;2? A)0A);)P3)N Y,-2P 36) 36) *,3; RP : R; 5{q4 ,P 6,Y 2A)2n 36,9163 ,P ,9A P,3 0A,W*)-; N)t2*9); Y623 +2-) 36) 62t) ;-2** Y23)A 36) /*A)2N?4 P)R16W,A6,,Nn 3623 +,AP)A ;6) 36R; AR163 3, 6,A;); 36) 0A);;9A) 3623 2** -? R3 ;2RN4 A)h,PRP1 Y,9*N *,+23R,P *,3; ,i YR36 36) N,,A Y,9*N 2PN 7,P) Y6R+6 6,-); Y,9*N 36) 23 W) YR36 ,0)P Y2; W) >,9P32RP i,A ,9A 2NNR3R,P 2 : W)n WA,9163 2 6R16u)PN *23)A RP N)P;) ,B2?n 2A)2; 6,-) +*R0W,2AN 36) /i3)A i,9PN ,i 2A)2 2PN V6) N)t)*,0-)P3 3623 ,ii , ;0)2BRP1 2 W? vr36 vr36 Y2; 2;BRP1 2PN ,93 Y,9*N 36R; Y2; 2 2NN; W)
T,P32+3 @?0)g S-2R* 2PN t,3) l)PPRi)A v{`r T2t) R3 P, TA))B4 S YR** 72; ,P / 32B) jPN)AY,,N 36) [R)NA2; /o A)h,PRP1 2Y2? wvqq^ (2? iA,- A)z9);3n Y623 -2B); 36) T2t) TA))B 2A)2 N);RA2W*)n [*)2;)
@,32* /N\ sRtR;R,P :;;9) /;;R1P)N @R-) @R-) V9W@?0) V9W@?0) V9W@?0) V9W@?0) [AR,AR3?g V3239;g 80)Pg 80)Pg @?0)g @,g ^g `g qg {g s)t)*,0-)P3 T9;3,-)AV)AtR+)4 p{gqv p{gqv >)NR9- T9;3,-)A V)AtR+) 6R;3,A? V)AtR+); [Os ,P `aus)+u`p`p vgvw[> N)32R*;
~FDe€DJJKJH‚ ƒEe„HJ€ deHFD O)Q3 C€†e !" /+3R,Pg # $ [*2PPRP1 T9;3,-)A %& ,P ' V)AtR+) `wus)+u`p`p ,P `aus)+u`p`p ^pgq{/> vgvw[> N)32R*; N)32R*;

)*+,-./0,1 56+7 86169*: 314, KLL ;<=> M,/* ?==@ABCD;E N-,+* FEGHICJCD ;@GC
!" # $ %& '

>? CDDEF LJFM /NN /332+6-)P3; :;;9)@A2B O,3) GFHIJK x,-) >2RP ]R)Y >)P9 :;;9) :;;9) <^_`^a^ <g ^_`^a^ bcc deHF fKeDF 72;3 O2-)gV,W,33B2 ()*+,-) /00*)123)4 52+6)* 7,1 893 )-2R* :;;9) R;;9) <
V9W-R3 V)2A+6 7,,B90 XP,Y*)N1) [A,\)+3; 5)0,A3; T9;3,- 7,1 O)Q3 SNR3 T*,;) T*,P)UT,0? 893 /+3R,P :;;9); :;;9) :;;9) 5)0,A3; Z2;) < V9W-R33)N 8A12PRh23R,Pg :Pi,A-23R,Pg t);+AR03R,Pg tRuR;R,P V9W\)+3g TR3Rh)P Z?g :tg [*2PPRP1 8A3Rh4 [Ott)uV)Au s,PRP1 :3 P)R16W,A6,,Nr 2P ,36)A; N)u)*,0-)P3r *);; ;,936 36) YR36 200)2A; 2N\2+)P3 ;2B) N)P;) [AR;+R**2 36R; ,i T2;) Y6, 2PN *,P) ,i 5kp 2; ;, t)u)*,0-)P3 P))N 0A,iR3;r *2PN ,P n -,9P32RP h,PRP1 36,916 0),0*) t)u)*,0-)P3 @6R; [6,P) : S-2R* `pnt)+n`m`m R-0*,A) ,YP)A4 36R; jRA;3 2A)2 @6)A) [)A-R3 )QR;3r O9-W)Agklmnlo`npom` /NNA);;g;3A9+39A2*i,A+)q1-2R*r+,- +,9*N 36) ,0)PP);; O2-)gjA)NAR+ 2PN Y2; 36R; 36) 6,-) 2A) 6R;3,A? [*)2;) )P\,? <gs`m^_^po V)AuR+); P,A36 h,PRP1 h,P)N R; kgpm[> *2A1) 2P W9R*N)A 3, 36R; N,Pw3 ,i RP200A,0AR23) 9;) ,P) 3A2+B; +,--R;;R,P tRQR*)32 3?0) 36)RA R; 2+A) *)3 om`namonoval A);9W-R33RP1 ,i ,i V6)2 *2PNr 0)A ,0)P R; *RuRP1r 2P *,+23R,P 3, 6,9;) x,-); @6) ,2;R;r ;323) A)\)+3 @6)A) *2PN 36) i,A 3A9;3 N);3A,? i,A ])A? 36) 6R;3,A? 2A) 2 0*2P )2;3 36R; A)2;,P4 h,PRP1 *2PN i)Y 6,A;) ,i i,A 36R; ao36 3A2+B; ;,936 36R; +62P1)r 3, ,YP)A; *Ri);3?*) B))0 ;3A))3 ,i ,i *2PN 2PN N)32R*; R3 /; i,A
A9*); [A);RN)P3 t?P2-R3) N);3A,? 2ii)+3 i,A [*)2;) V3A9+39A2**?4 jA)NAR+ N)P;) 2PN 36) B))0 (r A9A2* 62u) N)u)*,0-)P3yyyy *Ri);3?*) 2PN V,W,33B24 36R; *RuRP1 ,36)A 36)RA 2A)2 ,i Y) 2A)2; A);RN)P+); [rSr 36) 5kpy )P\,? 2N\2+)P3 :3w; 3623 : R-0*,A) RP P,3 36)? 36R; W9R*3 0A,0)A3? 36) +,9P3? +,9*N ?,9 ,P AR163 2+A) 3, 09A;9) R;*2PNr ,YP)A; *,+23R,P A)\)+3 *,3;r i,A [*)2;) 36) @6R; Y6, i,A N)u)*,0-)P3 h,PRP1 YR** R3y 2*A)2N? N,Pw3 1A)23*? +62P1)r ,0)P 0*2?)N 2PN ,P 36R; 2PN P)123Ru)*? W? 2A)2 36) P,3 90
+gklmrlo`rpom` /s V3A9+39A2*j,A+)q1-2R*r+,- YYYr;3A9+39A2*i,A+)r+,- 8x4 8P YA,3)g €,,N @62PB 2PN @62PB T/g Z);3 >2AR+,02 2PN >,P4 [A,i);;R,P2* P,3Ri? O> A)12AN;4 -,APRP1 ?,9 ?,9 z@g 2PN >2A T,9P3? 36) 212RPr i,A V3A9+39A2* @}g pm4 ?,9A ;32ii jA)NAR+4 [A,i);;R,P2* SP1RP))A [*2PPRP1 `m`m [*)2;) +,--)P3r -)-W)A SP1RP))A 23 *)3 vg^k {[S| 2PN 9; Y6, SP1RP))A () t)u)*,0-)P3 BP,Y /> n {VS| TRuR* R; YR** ~[Ot0N+9;3,-)A;)AuR+)q-2AR+,02r1,u Y,ABRP1 Ri RP+,A0,A23) {[S| ?,9 62u) n ,P V3A9+39A2* 36R; 2P? 36R; +2;)r i9A36)A +,--)P3 9);3R,P;r RP3, 36) +2;) iR*)
@6) @, :;;9) V9W\)+3g V3239;g tRuR;R,P V9W [AR,AR3?g [A,\)+3g [7S/VS uR)Y i,**,YRP1 @?0) <g 80)P 36R; t8 @?0)g >)NR9- s`m^_^po ^vvk_` ^g O8@ :;;9) [*2PPRP1 :;;9) t)u)*,0-)P3 5S[7‚ RP 62; N)32R*4 @8 W))P @x:V +*R+B V)AuR+); ;9W-R33)N S>/:7y xS5Sr 3, :;;9)@A2Bg
!" # $ %& '

()*)+),-. :4;<-)=<8),-. 3?@7)882> N++);-2> 12Q8 R++?2 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS R+ <-> )+ )- 384?98?4<55BC \42>4)9 < 8U<8 )8 4?4<5 8U2 8,, N98),-. (2+94)68),-. 6<48)9?5<4 ]Z 5<-> 5<82 01((2*324* <42< O,. 3,@,88^<C AB. 8, 05<--)-; 2<+8 P?+8,724324*)92C 05<--)-; W)8U A<5>,-<>,C *,)92 <42<Z ,X 7<-B KJ8U 0Z_Z ,@T298),- ,- (2*25,672-8 <-> EFGH<4GIFIF -)92 +84228 D,+27<4B (2*25,672-8 U,72+ 8, 01( )+ 8U)+ =,-2> ,- 324*)92+ ,- ,- 42=,-)-;V EFGH<4GIFIF EFGH<4GIFIF <942 DYE 5,8+Z <-> R ,W- X225 (2-+24 JFIGKFJGKLIM )8 8W, +U,?5> >2*25,672-8+ 64,6248)2+ +8<B 8U<8 )- 8U2 >,-[8 W<BZ <42< R8 X)8
()*)+),- P,-8<98 3?@OB62 3?@OB62 OB62. OB62. L. I. _7<)5 (2*25,672-8 a,-)-; 042+)>2-8 32-8 384?98?4<5\,492`;7<)5Z9,7 9.YMFZMJIZEJFI Na :eC WWWZ+84?98?4<5X,492Z9,7 PN. <-> 04,X2++),-<5 1H X4,7 bO. <-> 7,@)52 384?98?4<5 Of. 324*)92+ 04,X2++),-<5 _-;)-224 >2*)92 _-;)-224 c0_d _-;)-224 G c3_d P)*)5 c0_d G 384?98?4<5
hijklmjnonpnqr stkkluqnmv zlqij O,8<5 N>T R++?2 N++);-2> 12Q8 O)72 O)72 3?@OB62 3?@OB62 xmyl 04),4)8B. 38<8?+. N98),-. :62-. :62-. O,. E. Y. P?+8,724324*)92C Ig.FE Ig.FE H2>)?7 05<--)-; a,-)-; 05<- ,- D2*)2W U)+8,4B IYG(29GIFIF 01( ,- ,- IEG(29GIFIF IEG(29GIFIF M.LKNH Y.EF0H >28<)5+ Y.EF0H >28<)5+ >28<)5+
hijlptqnlm ŒjŽ ])55+,-C {|}~€}{{ mviu xmyl OU242+<. ‚ƒ„…†‡ \:D]ND(_( ‘‘ O<+^ zlqi N++);-2>O, ’plji O: 0‰N11R1Š aIFL‹LEJ P,765282> O)72
!" # $ %& '

From: James Cochran
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Re: Case #: Z2019136 - 56th and Lone Mountain
Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 10:38:14 AM
Rachel,
I oppose the request for the zone change from Rural-43 to R1-18 for the 28 acres listed in this
case. We recently moved to 59th street in Cave Creek from a high-density residential plan. The
primary reason we moved here was specifically to get away from housing plans. We also
believe that this plan would decrease the pool of potential buyers in the future as many
people choose to shop for houses in this neighborhood because it is not a high-density
housing plan. Also, aesthetically, it is not what we want to see in our neighborhood. Our
neighborhood has a very open, rural feel to it and dropping in 50+ homes would completely
decimate that aesthetic. This is a horse community and he should be left as such.
Thanks,
Jim Cochran
30402 N. 59th St.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Parcel #: 211-45-071D
480-415-0794
From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:51 AM
To: James Cochran <jimmy@jimmycochran.com>
Subject: RE: Case #: Z2019136 - 56th and Lone Mountain
E-mail is fine - I just need your addressing, parcel number and reason for opposition.
Thank you,
Rachel Applegate
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
602-372-0318
Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov
From: James Cochran <jimmy@jimmycochran.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:50 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Case #: Z2019136 - 56th and Lone Mountain

Hi Rachel,
May I submit my letter of protest via e-mail? Or does it need to be in person? If in person,
where? The instructions simply state, "Must file in writing."
Thanks,
Jimmy Cochran


















From: Derek Wilson
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Derek Wilson
Subject: Case #: Z2019136 - Symmetry 56th St & Lone Mountain - Opposition to Zoning Change
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 9:50:45 AM
Attachments: Case Z2019136 Symmetry 56th St and Lone Mountain - Opposition.pdf
Hello Rachel,
My name is Derek Wilson and I am writing you to express my absolute opposition to the
zoning change request from Shea Homes for Case# Z2019136 56th St and Lone Mountain.
Please see the attached letter of my opposition and submit it to the record. I am one of all of
the area residents who oppose this zoning change.
My contact information:
Derek Wilson
31017 N. 56th Street, Cave Creek, AZ 85331
602 509-7744
soundmanderek@gmail.com
Parcel ID: 211-45-003M
Thank you for making sure my opposition letter is submitted and addressed.
Best regards, Derek Wilson

Opposition Letter for:!
Case #: Z2019136 - Symmetry 56th St. & Lone Mountain.!
!
From: Derek Wilson!
31017 N. 56th Street!
Cave Creek, AZ 85331!
Parcel ID: 211-45-003M!
!!
To Whom it may concern,!
!
My name is Derek Wilson and I was on the zoom meeting’s and was unable to speak
during the meeting due to the amount of community input. For the record, I agree with
everything that was expressed by the community members in regards to any change of
zoning in order for Shea Homes to ruin our community. !
!
I am writing you today to express my opposition to the proposed zoning change for !
Case #: Z2019136 - Symmetry 56th St. & Lone Mountain.!
!
My house is located on the North property line of the requested zoning change. We
have lived here for 6 years and in that time, four new large communities have been built
within a 1/2 mile of my property. High density housing does not fit the rural flow of our
neighborhood. We have noticed a major change to the traffic conditions, noise and light
pollution and the requested zone change will continue to increase all of these issues.
This rural area should be kept rural!!
!
We have a major concern with how this will affect the flood plain which FEMA has
added to the 100 year flood map recently. This wash runs east to west along the north
border of the requested zone change. Shea homes has not addressed this very
important issue that will affect the neighbors to the North and if not addressed correctly
could cause flooding of these properties.!
!
The “set-back” distances of 25’ is not acceptable and does not address the flood plan
issue for the North side property owners.!
!
Impact to the wildlife and their habitat is another huge reason we need to keep this area
as currently zoned. If the requested zone change is approved, this natural desert habitat
will disappear and impact the already declining flora and fauna. The current Rural 43
zoning provides for space between homes, giving the animals we love space to live.
These master planned communities with walls and gates are cutting deeply into our
neighborhood changing it forever in such a negative way.!
!
All adjoining property owners have expressed their opposition to this application, so I
am not sure how the Shea group has stated that they received numerous approvals? !
!

It was brought to my attention by the other home owners that the Shea application for
the requested rezoning was not processed correctly? If this is the case, it should be
denied and not amended.!
!
In closing, I understand that Maricopa county desires development in the county. To
destroy a way of life for so many people and wildlife to get there is not acceptable. My
wife and I worked hard and saved for over 20 years to purchase our retirement dream
and to have these high density developers come in and destroy our neighborhood for
profit is disgusting. This “Rural” area must be protected! Rural 43 needs to be
maintained. It is the right thing to do.!
!
Jack Farmer is in the right when speaking of the flood plain and how a report should be
done prior to the project approval. !
!
Shea Homes should find another parcel of land where this type of zoning fits current
zoning ordinances and not change the way of life for the many residents who call this
community home.!
!
Derek Wilson!
31017 N. 56th Street!
Cave Creek, AZ 85331!
602 509-7744!
Parcel ID: 211-45-003M


From: Gail Philp
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Opposition for Rezoning - Planning & Zoning 1-14-21 meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 12:24:49 PM
I am unable to attend the Planning & Zoning hearing on 1-14-21 but would like to express my opposition to
the proposal request to rezone the 28 acre property from RU-43 to R1-18 RUPD. Case #Z2019136
I built a home 2 years ago and was drawn to the area because of the low population density. I strongly
oppose changing the requirements to allow increasing the number of homes to be built in this area. Please
vote against this proposal!
Thank You,
Gail Philp

From: Pipitone, Vince L
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: RE: January 14, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Interest in Speaking
Date: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:29:28 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image004.png
Case #: Z2019136 / Symmetry 56th St. and Lone Mountain
Vincent Pipitone; 5970 E Wildcat Dr., Cave Creek AZ 85331; vpipitone@cox.net or
vince.pipitone@gd-ms.com; 480-707-3914
Identify yourself: Other, nearby homeowner (also Lone Mountain Ranch HOA President, but
representing self at the meeting)
Opposition to current plan
I do not wish to speak, but my concerns are as follows:
1. As a homeowner on E Wildcat Dr., I am in strong opposition to Wildcat being the emergency
exit. It’s too easy for it to become a regular exit, adding unnecessary traffic to a residential
street. Also, there is no landscaping buffer on the western side of the development, impacting
homes on Wildcat and 59th St. Having an emergency exit and smaller landscaped buffer along
Montgomery would potentially impact fewer existing residents.
2. Request is to re-zone as R1-18 in name only; lot sizes and setbacks are not consistent with R1-
18. Developer should be held to R1-18 regulations. Furthermore, as shown in R1-10 to R1-18
comparison chart, there is no beneficial change from the initial request regarding individual
lots (just a bookkeeping change in average lot size due to slightly fewer homes).
3. Staff Report (item 6) claim the request is “consistent with current residential markets in the
area” and “will create diversity of home ownership opportunities”, an apparent contradiction.
Lone Mountain Ranch, approved over 25 years ago, was the last development with acre lots
approved nearby. Diversity would be better served if the land stayed RU-43.
4. No benefit to the County or existing homeowners of approving this request are described in
the Staff Report or applicant material.
Also, as described on the card I received in the mail, I would like to file a protest letter. Is there a
form or required format for the protest letter?
Thanks, Vincent Pipitone
From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: January 14, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Interest in Speaking
External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do not click links
or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for registering attendance for the January 14, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission
hearing with GoToWebinar.

As follow up to attendance for the virtual public hearing, please let me know the following
information to relay to the Chairman your interest in a planning case and if you would like to speak
during the hearing.
Please response with the following information:
Case number / Project name
§ Your name, address, e-mail and phone number
§ Identify yourself as applicant / applicant representative / other
§ Indicate support or opposition
§ Indicate if you wish to speak or do not wish to speak
Public Hearing – Gotowebinar User Guide (Registration – Audio – Chat)
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62323/Gotowebinar-User-Guide---Maricopa-
County-published-8-17-20?bidId=
Thank you,
Rachel Applegate
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85008
Desk: 602-372-0318 | Fax: 602-506-3711
Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov

From: Mike Motter
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning - Planning & Zoning 1-14-21 meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:08:29 PM
Case #Z2019136- Rezone 28 acres from RU-43 to R1-18 RUPD
I am opposed to this rezoning request that will be discussed at the 1-14-21 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
The traffic generated by increasing population density 4 fold is not what I expected when I moved into this
area. Please vote against this proposal!
Thank You,
Mike Motter

12-JAN-21
Good morning Mr. Lally,
As there was not time for me to complete my questions and comments in the on-line
community meeting on December 15th, I would like to follow up by reiterating and
expanding some of my concerns about your client’s modified zoning change application
and proposed development of the parcel on 56th Street between Lone Mountain and
Montgomery.
During the 12/15 meeting, the question of lighting, particularly street lights, was raised.
As I’m sure you are aware, the County Island that includes the parcel in question has
unpaved roads and easements without street lights. Street lights are not needed.
Communities in the north valley recognize that “Dark Skies” that allow residents to view
the natural night sky with stars, planets, etc. is a tangible quality of life issue that
benefits residents and makes these areas more attractive to live in.
If your client is not familiar with this issue, they may want to check with the International
Dark Sky Association (IDA) headquartered in Tucson. The IDA has a program for
designating “Dark Sky Communities” if they meet the criteria. Fountain Hills has
completed this certification process and I believe Cave Creek is in the process of
meeting the requirements. These communities are willing to invest in meeting these
requirements because they know that preserving the night sky provides a benefit to their
community that is increasingly unavailable to communities near urban areas. This is one
of the reasons why residents of the County Island containing this parcel have chosen to
live here.
My point is not that this proposed development, which is not a city, should formally
consider this certification but rather to advise your client that failing to preserve this
increasingly unavailable tangible benefit of “Dark Skies” would not be in their own
interest or in the interest of any prospective lot purchaser.
As a property owner separated from north side of this parcel only by a 404 wash, I am
especially concerned with drainage issues and planning. Any drainage plans for the
proposed development that divert the wash or directly or indirectly routes drainage into
the wash that doesn’t go there now has the potential to push water onto my property
and my neighbors’ property north of the development parcel.
If I understood you correctly, you indicated that the proposed development will comply
with the 404 wash requirements. However, you could not provide any information on the
specifics of how these requirements would be met because drainage engineering is not
typically completed until later after all the County approvals for the project have been
obtained.
I appreciate your assurance that “all the rules will be followed” in drainage planning but,
considering the importance of this issue particularly with the 404 wash, it seems clear

that it would be appropriate in this case for this issue to be investigated to some level of
detail prior to county approval. I second Jack Farmer’s request for this to happen.
Beyond the direct 404 wash issues, the drainage impact of your proposed development
on the surrounding properties is much more general. As even a cursory look at Figure 3
on the project Web site shows that the surrounding areas have predominantly unpaved
roads and extensive natural plants, trees, and cactus (including Saguaros) on these R1-
43 lots that are naturally irrigated by a network of washes and their smaller tributaries all
following their natural paths. This is natural landscaping for R1-43 lots.
Your client is proposing a development typical of a Phoenix R1-18 or R1-10
development with paved streets and artificially installed landscaping and irrigation. Once
you bulldoze a large swath of this R1-43 parcel and dump an R1-18 development in the
middle of it with artificial landscaping and drainage, this is bound to impact the delicate
network of washes and tributaries in the area in unpredictable ways over time. This
could result in existing natural landscaping on nearby properties not getting the water
they need.
This brings us to the fundamental facts that all of these concerns, and many more, flow
from:
Virtually all the property owners in the rural R1-43 zoned County island which includes
this parcel oppose this application to interject an incompatible higher-density urban R1-
18 zoned area into the R1-43 rural zoned County island community. On the December
15th meeting, not a single speaker supported the proposed zoning change or
development.
The amended zoning request does not address any of the fundamental objections to the
original application. While any reduction in density is technically better, whether you
build 65 houses on ~ 18 acres (excluding streets, open areas, etc.) or 56 houses on 18
acres is not the real issue. It is not an issue of whether you want to put 3.8 houses per
acre or 3.2 houses per acre in an area zoned for one house per acre. Those of us who
have purchased property in the R1-43 rural County island did so because that zoning
suited our needs. Your proposed development is clearly incompatible with the
surrounding County Island community. (Again, see Figure 3 on the Web site.)
Most of us in the County island community have made investments in improving our
property in ways compatible with the actual R1-43 zoning over the years. In the case of
those neighbors who are operating businesses compatible with the current zoning,
some of those investments are no doubt very substantial.
What your client could have, and should have, done is one of two things:
If they wanted to build a R1-18 Phoenix style development, they should have purchased
land zoned as R1-18 - not purchase land zoned R1-43 and then try to convince the

county to change the zoning to their benefit and to the detriment of surrounding property
owners.
If they want to develop the parcel in question, they need to adhere to the existing R1-43
zoning which the county’s development plan calls for going forward. As was noted in the
December 15th meeting, Shea has done other developments consistent with the R1-43
density.
So far as I could tell, this was the fundamental objection of every speaker I heard on the
December 15th meeting.
Sincerely,
Barrett M. (Mike) Guthrie
480 459-7195

From: erin@thearegroup.com
To: wel@tblaw.com
Cc: Rachel Applegate (PND); Chad Gunderson; mike_guthrie@earthlink.net; Jim Albrecht; Marlene Albrecht;
acudeva@gmail.com; soundmanderek@gmail.com
Subject: Owners north of the Shea 56th Street property regarding access to HOA
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 12:28:58 PM
Good afternoon Mr. Lally,
I wanted to reach out to you regarding the current plan Shea has in place for the North end
of the property that borders our road. During the neighborhood zoom meetings, I inquired
about how the HOA planned to access the 25' setback that borders the back of our
properties and I have not received a response yet nor about how the community will be
fenced/gated on that side. Although, we appreciate as much of a setback as possible, we
are not in agreement with access on our road from landscapers to maintain that area nor
would they be able to go through my neighbor's land through the washes and instead, ask
that it remain NAOS so as not to disturb everyone down our road.
Please let me know Shea's resolution to this concern prior to the upcoming supervisor
hearing.
Thank you,
Erin and Chad Gunderson
480-980-8683

From: Jen Pokorski (PND)
To: Rachel Applegate (PND); Matthew Holm (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject: Fwd: Shea Lone Mountain & 56th Street Project
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:33:32 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Farmer <jack@santolinafarm.com>
Date: January 13, 2021 at 8:15:51 AM MST
To: "Steve Chucri (BOS)" <Steve.Chucri@maricopa.gov>, "Nicole Bendle
(BOS)" <Nicole.Bendle@maricopa.gov>, "Page Gonzales (BOS)"
<Page.Gonzales@maricopa.gov>, "Jen Pokorski (PND)"
<Jen.Pokorski@maricopa.gov>, "AZ Cakes, Elizabeth" <azcakes@mac.com>,
Gregory Harmon <gregharmon@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Shea Lone Mountain & 56th Street Project
Sorry accidentally sent,
Monterey Homes by Toll Brothers is also 1.1 DUAC
Please ask Shea to withdraw this application.
thanks,
Jack Farmer
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:09 AM Jack Farmer <jack@santolinafarm.com>
wrote:
Good morning Steve
I have forwarded you this letter to the developer's attorney, as it
represents the 67 individual home owners that surround this parcel.
Nobody wants this development. Please ask Shea Homes to withdraw
their application.
Shea Homes zoning application is out of line with the area and MCC
2030 plan. Even our worst case scenario of approving R1-18, the other
R1-18 developments in the area, including City of Phoenix, are 1.1
dwelling units per acre. Not 2 DUAC as requesting by Shea. Shea
should develop R-43 keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods. 28
lots.

R1-18 developments within 2 sections of land in MCC.
MCC 60th Street and Dynamite - Toll Brothers 20 ac with 24 lots.
COP - All of Section 16 is 660 ac with 772 homes or 1.1 DUAC
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Barrett Guthrie <mike_guthrie@me.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:20 PM
Subject: Shea Lone Mountain & 56th Street Project
To: William E. Lally <wel@tblaw.com>
Cc: Rachel Applegate <rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov>
Please see my attached letter for my concerns regarding this project.
Thank you,
Barrett M. (Mike) Guthrie
480 459-7195


From: Erin Gunderson
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Shea development concerns
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2021 9:05:05 AM
Good morning Rachel,
Rather than speak this morning, I thought it might be easiest to email you my concerns so as not to to take up a lot of
time for the meeting.
We, as neighbors that border the proposed zoning, do not feel that Shea’s current proposal is consistent with the
surrounding homes and are not in agreement with an R1-18 zoning with amended standards. This zoning with
amended standards creates density that looks similar to R1-10 and would have four lots meeting our lot line alone.
We are agreeable to development as we know that it is inevitable but want development that is thoughtful about
preservation rather than a developer’s bottom line.
Thank you,
Chad and Erin Gunderson
31031 North 56th Street
Cave Creek, AZ 85331

From: noreply@civicplus.com
To: PND PZAppeal
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:50:10 AM
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Appeal Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
However, if this appeal form is received within 15 calendar days following
Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda
for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Name Chad Gunderson
Email Address dbackchad@cox.net
Address 31031 North 56th Street
City Cave Creek
State AZ
Zip Code 85331
Phone Number 6029805088
Fax Number Field not completed.
Case Number / Project Z2019136
Name
Planning & Zoning 1/14/2020
Commission Hearing
Date
Reason for the Appeal We have continued concerns about the density of the current
of the Subject Case project as it remains similar to what it started out with at R1-10.
R1-18 with amended standards will look almost the same and the
decrease in lots was based largely on the requirement for a
retention basin as opposed to working with the community. We
remained concerned as a whole.
Electronic Signature I agree.
Agreement
Electronic Signature Chad T. Gunderson
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

January 18, 2021
Rachel Applegate, Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
RE: Rezoning proposal: Symmetry 56th St. & Lone Mountain - Case number Z2019136
Dear Maricopa County Planning and Development,
I am adamantly opposed to this zoning change for at least, but not limited to, the following reasons.
Shea Homes is proposing a density R1-18. This means at least 56 homes on a 28-acre site and possibly
more with the amendment to the zoning. The entire surrounding area is R-43, no other high density
zoning exists in the area. This is unacceptable to the neighborhood and neighbors as it is not compatible
with our current density and lifestyle no matter how you try to mitigate it. I specifically purchased a
home in this area because of the low-density zoning that currently exists and we feel that this type of
zoning should remain and is characteristic of the Cave Creek area. Shea Homes has not proposed any
improvements to 56th street that would mediate the additional traffic that will be added every day and
even so, we do not want the additional traffic and related noise and sight pollution. If we consider 2 cars
per home, we will see an additional 150 cars per day in and out of the area. We already have a traffic
problem due to the elementary school on Montgomery west of 56th street.
The proposal of any gate that exists to Wildcat could always potentially be utilized to egress through the
Lone Mountain subdivision in the future and is unacceptable.
Drainage is also a concern. Several neighbors already have drainage issues from the proposed site. We
are very concerned that the proposed development will impact the current properties to the south and
west and possibly even affect proper drainage from our subdivision as it goes through that area.
We also do not wish to have the additional light pollution in the area. This has always been a quiet and
low light area. We want to preserve this character in our area, which is why we invested here.
It is not fair to us for Shea Homes to buy a property and then change the zoning in the name of profit
that will severely affect the property values of the surrounding homes as well as diminish our peaceful
enjoyment of them. If Shea Homes wishes to build on the site please hold them to the current zoning
and respect the people that already live here. They could still develop the site and build custom homes
on 1 acre lots. If that doesn’t suit their business model then they should purchase a different piece of
land that does. Please don’t destroy our neighborhood in the name of profit. This should stay R-43 like it
is now and on the Maricopa future plan. This property should remain R-43 Zoning as intended for the
benefit of all who live here, not just the benefit of the developers who most assuredly don't. We don’t
want any precedent set in the area that would invite further high density zoning.
I ask that you please hold Shea Homes or any other potential developer to the current R-43 zoning that
blends with the current properties and lifestyle that this area is known for.
Thank you,
William Metz
31196 North 59th Street
Parcel # 211-45-268


Z2019136
O pposition and Support
211
211 211 211 211 211 45 211
63 45 45 45 45 270 45
385 318B 318A 319 003D 292
211
45
211 211 211 211 211 211 271 211
63 45 45 45 45 45 45
001P 003L 003N 003M 003P 003G 211 291
45
272 211
45
N 290
211
45 211 211 59thSt
002X 45 45
211 273 274
45
316 211
45 E W ildcat Dr
002D
211 211 211 211
45 45 45 45
317 275 276 277
211 St
63
003B 56th
211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
002N 002P 002Q 002R 002F 315 001N 001F
E Rancho Tierra Dr
211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
320 002T 002U 002V 002Z 001M 001L 001P
E M ontgom ery Rd
211
211 45
89 211 115A
625A 89 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
N
488C 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
064B 064C 120B 57th 066 067C 113A 113B
211 211
89 St 45
N55t 489C 8thSt 115B
h
N5
W y
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 1/19/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Eligible parcels: 36 All area inside the 300' buffer - excluding subject Subject Parcel Opposition Parcels
Supporting parcels: 2 parcel,
Opposition parcels: 18 ROW and excluded parcels: 1,747,001.34 300' Buffer 300' Buffer Interior
Supporting parcels sq ft: 87,891.94 No-response parcels sq ft: 696,782.28
Opposition parcels sq ft: 961,103.22 Super M ajority opposed parcel acres: 55% Supporting Parcels 300' Buffer Selection
Subject parcels sq ft: 1,226,006.21 Super M ajority opposed parcel num ber: 50% 150 75 0 150 Feet
All area inside the 300' buffer: 2,973,007.55
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\O ppositionCases\Z2019136-2\Z2019136-2.aprx

Z2019136
All O pposition and Support
om e a E S c lee h R p y 62nd y W E M i g hty
ELones ES ierr tT r kR d N Ran d N Sa guar oW y
Tr Suns e ETh under H aw Palom Rancho 57th e Po m pas ENutri o soPass E Burnside Tr
E Calle a Dr W y D r Call e D sSt EAshlerHillsDr
e s Los Arboles De EW hit e Pine E EHo dg e e E CalleDe
lleD Flore St Calle n n aRd ECall Escu d a L a sEstrella s
C a Los E elSol N EBria E Fore s t
N 52nd D Pl 58th Pl e a s ant P l ERanchRd
N ECalle eBaca Pl eM a r ita St
D 4th E C all W e lls P a ss Ln 61s t P l EG loriaLn 69th St 71stSt
N 5 ittl e O yer N N
EL E 70th N
Lone M ountain Rd N68thSt N
Del NR Ranch Rd E Rancho E R a ncho
O a N NSunrise RanchRd saro De lO roCt Del O roDr
roDr ncho EP a ndSt
D r
o E Perola EW ildcatDr N62
E R a nc h r Dr
Cali e nt e D d enCt ELowd enRd
ho ELow
ERan c Dr 56thSt
Tierr a E M ontg om eryRd N66thSt
E P a l o N
Bre a L n St
teDr P l E M ilton Dr E Davis Rd
al o nd 55thW St 65th
ECasc
52 y 60th N E W in d stone Tr
t N St N
E Jus ticaS er N 54 58th 64thSt E Barwick Dr
EB a k th N
D r St N57thSt
er Dixileta Dr th N N C a rria g e
E Arm or EJ u ni p Dr 6 7 S t 67th 6 E r a ils D r
N St Ca n yon E Duane Ln N W y l P th 9 T
NDes N51st Pl
St 50th E Dewdrop Pl
N e rt EVia Tr N59thSt E M orning Vista Ln O w lTr e N
49th W il DonaDr 65th ned E B o b w hit 70th
Pl St Pl N E H o r W y W
E Skinner Dr y
lowPkwy 53rd 64th y
N68th W
N g u aro N EPeakViewRd
N50th E Saguaro ESa a Ct a Ct
Pl E Roy Vista Dr Vist e d
Juana Rogers Rd EAlm
E Ct
Ro berta N y W 57th Pl St N6 3 E Dale Ln
E D r 51stSt St n ita N N Pl st 1 rdPl
Desert 52nd 55th EJua Ct Pl 5 60th N6 N63 r EM a r k Ln
E V istaTr N N 9th N d S
t
DISCLAIM from and against ER: This any m and ap is all a suits, graphical actions, representation legal or adm designed inistrative for proceedings, general reference claim s, purposes dem ands only. or dam Viewer/User ages of any agrees kind to or indem nature nify, arising defend out and of the hold use harm of this less m M ap, aricopa or the County, data contained its officers, herein, departm in its ents, actual em or ployees altered and form agents . M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 1/19/2021
Subject Parcel
Supporting Parcels
Opposition Parcels
0.15 0.07 0 0.15 M iles
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\O ppositionCases\Z2019136-2\Z2019136-2.aprx