CPA2021012 Z2021074 BOS REPORT_PART3.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
124842 characters
Arizona Environmental Online Review Tool Report
Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission
To conserve Arizona's diverse wildlife resources and manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation
opportunities for current and future generations.
Project Name:
Go away ranch/ Sunrise Ranch
Project Description:
Single family residential community which features 101 total lots (1.75 units per acre) in a private gated
community featuring significant open space and superior site design.
Project Type:
Development Within Municipalities (Urban Growth), Residential subdivision and associated infrastructure,
New construction
Contact Person:
Cheri Boucher
Organization:
Arizona Game and Fish Department
On Behalf Of:
MARICOPA
Project ID:
HGIS-14916
Please review the entire report for project type and/or species recommendations for the location
information entered. Please retain a copy for future reference.
Page 1 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Disclaimer:
1. This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that was entered. The report must be
updated if the project study area, location, or the type of project changes.
2. This is a preliminary environmental screening tool. It is not a substitute for the potential knowledge
gained by having a biologist conduct a field survey of the project area. This review is also not intended to
replace environmental consultation (including federal consultation under the Endangered Species Act),
land use permitting, or the Departments review of site-specific projects.
3. The Departments Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) data is not intended to include potential
distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and
environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that
biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there.
HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the
Department. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been
conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Such surveys may reveal previously
undocumented population of species of special concern.
4. HabiMap Arizona data, specifically Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) under our State
Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI), represent
potential species distribution models for the State of Arizona which are subject to ongoing change,
modification and refinement. The status of a wildlife resource can change quickly, and the availability of
new data will necessitate a refined assessment.
Locations Accuracy Disclaimer:
Project locations are assumed to be both precise and accurate for the purposes of environmental review. The
creator/owner of the Project Review Report is solely responsible for the project location and thus the correctness
of the Project Review Report content.
Page 2 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Recommendations Disclaimer:
1. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and wildlife resources, including those
species listed in this report and those that may have not been documented within the project vicinity as
well as other game and nongame wildlife.
2. Recommendations have been made by the Department, under authority of Arizona Revised Statutes
Title 5 (Amusements and Sports), 17 (Game and Fish), and 28 (Transportation).
3. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or avoided by the recommendations
generated from information submitted for your proposed project. These recommendations are preliminary
in scope, designed to provide early considerations on all species of wildlife.
4. Making this information directly available does not substitute for the Department's review of project
proposals, and should not decrease our opportunity to review and evaluate additional project information
and/or new project proposals.
5. Further coordination with the Department requires the submittal of this Environmental Review Report with
a cover letter and project plans or documentation that includes project narrative, acreage to be impacted,
how construction or project activity(s) are to be accomplished, and project locality information (including
site map). Once AGFD had received the information, please allow 30 days for completion of project
reviews. Send requests to:
Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch
Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 West Carefree Highway
Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000
Phone Number: (623) 236-7600
Fax Number: (623) 236-7366
Or
PEP@azgfd.gov
6. Coordination may also be necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Site specific recommendations may be proposed during further
NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected agencies
Page 3 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Page 4 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Page 5 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Page 6 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Page 7 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Special Status Species Documented within 3 Miles of Project Vicinity
Scientific Name
Common Name
FWS
USFS
BLM
NPL
SGCN
Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Western Burrowing Owl
SC
S
S
1B
Danaus plexippus
Monarch
C
S
Gopherus morafkai
Sonoran Desert Tortoise
C
S
S
1A
Note: Status code definitions can be found at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/statusdefinitions/
.
Special Areas Documented that Intersect with Project Footprint as Drawn
Scientific Name
Common Name
FWS
USFS
BLM
NPL
SGCN
Riparian Area
Riparian Area
Note: Status code definitions can be found at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/statusdefinitions/
.
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted that Intersect with Project Footprint as Drawn, based on
Predicted Range Models
Scientific Name
Common Name
FWS
USFS
BLM
NPL
SGCN
Aix sponsa
Wood Duck
1B
Ammospermophilus harrisii
Harris' Antelope Squirrel
1B
Anthus spragueii
Sprague's Pipit
SC
1A
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden Eagle
BGA
S
1B
Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Western Burrowing Owl
SC
S
S
1B
Botaurus lentiginosus
American Bittern
1B
Buteo regalis
Ferruginous Hawk
SC
S
1B
Calypte costae
Costa's Hummingbird
1C
Castor canadensis
American Beaver
1B
Chilomeniscus stramineus
Variable Sandsnake
1B
Chionactis annulata
Resplendent Shovel-nosed Snake
SC
1C
Cistothorus palustris
Marsh Wren
1C
Colaptes chrysoides
Gilded Flicker
S
1B
Coluber bilineatus
Sonoran Whipsnake
1B
Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat
SC
S
S
1B
Crotalus tigris
Tiger Rattlesnake
1B
Empidonax wrightii
Gray Flycatcher
1C
Euderma maculatum
Spotted Bat
SC
S
S
1B
Eumops perotis californicus
Greater Western Bonneted Bat
SC
S
1B
Falco peregrinus anatum
American Peregrine Falcon
SC
S
S
1A
Gopherus morafkai
Sonoran Desert Tortoise
C
S
S
1A
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
SC,
BGA
S
S
1A
Heloderma suspectum
Gila Monster
1A
Page 8 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted that Intersect with Project Footprint as Drawn, based on
Predicted Range Models
Scientific Name
Common Name
FWS
USFS
BLM
NPL
SGCN
Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense
Desert Mud Turtle
S
1B
Lasiurus blossevillii
Western Red Bat
S
1B
Lasiurus xanthinus
Western Yellow Bat
S
1B
Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
Lesser Long-nosed Bat
SC
1A
Lithobates yavapaiensis
Lowland Leopard Frog
SC
S
S
1A
Macrotus californicus
California Leaf-nosed Bat
SC
S
1B
Melanerpes uropygialis
Gila Woodpecker
1B
Melospiza lincolnii
Lincoln's Sparrow
1B
Melozone aberti
Abert's Towhee
S
1B
Micrathene whitneyi
Elf Owl
1C
Micruroides euryxanthus
Sonoran Coralsnake
1B
Myiarchus tyrannulus
Brown-crested Flycatcher
1C
Myotis velifer
Cave Myotis
SC
S
1B
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma Myotis
SC
1B
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Pocketed Free-tailed Bat
1B
Oreoscoptes montanus
Sage Thrasher
1C
Oreothlypis luciae
Lucy's Warbler
1C
Panthera onca
Jaguar
LE
1A
Passerculus sandwichensis
Savannah Sparrow
1B
Phrynosoma goodei
Goode's Horned Lizard
1B
Phrynosoma solare
Regal Horned Lizard
1B
Phyllorhynchus browni
Saddled Leaf-nosed Snake
1B
Rallus obsoletus yumanensis
Yuma Ridgway's Rail
LE
1A
Setophaga petechia
Yellow Warbler
1B
Spizella breweri
Brewer's Sparrow
1C
Sturnella magna
Eastern Meadowlark
1C
Tadarida brasiliensis
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
1B
Toxostoma lecontei
LeConte's Thrasher
S
1B
Troglodytes pacificus
Pacific Wren
1B
Vireo bellii arizonae
Arizona Bell's Vireo
1B
Vulpes macrotis
Kit Fox
No
Status
1B
Species of Economic and Recreation Importance Predicted that Intersect with Project Footprint as Drawn
Scientific Name
Common Name
FWS
USFS
BLM
NPL
SGCN
Callipepla gambelii
Gambel's Quail
Zenaida asiatica
White-winged Dove
Zenaida macroura
Mourning Dove
Page 9 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Project Type: Development Within Municipalities (Urban Growth), Residential subdivision and associated
infrastructure, New construction
Project Type Recommendations:
Fence recommendations will be dependant upon the goals of the fence project and the wildlife species expected to be
impacted by the project. General guidelines for ensuring wildlife-friendly fences include: barbless wire on the top and
bottom with the maximum fence height 42", minimum height for bottom 16". Modifications to this design may be
considered for fencing anticipated to be routinely encountered by elk, bighorn sheep or pronghorn (e.g., Pronghorn
fencing would require 18" minimum height on the bottom). Please refer to the Department's Fencing Guidelines located
on Wildlife Friendly Guidelines page, which is part of the WIldlife Planning button at
https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/.
During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement,
connectivity, and access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from accessing resources, finding
mates, reduces gene flow, prevents wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have occurred, and
ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey
numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases, streams and washes provide natural movement corridors
for wildlife and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a large diversity of species, and should
be contained within important wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions
can be facilitated through improving designs of structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a
variety of wildlife. Guidelines for many of these can be found
at: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/.
Consider impacts of outdoor lighting on wildlife and develop measures or alternatives that can be taken to increase
human safety while minimizing potential impacts to wildlife. Conduct wildlife surveys to determine species within project
area, and evaluate proposed activities based on species biology and natural history to determine if artificial lighting may
disrupt behavior patterns or habitat use. Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. Narrow spectrum bulbs
should be used as often as possible to lower the range of species affected by lighting. All lighting should be shielded,
canted, or cut to ensure that light reaches only areas needing illumination.
Minimize the potential introduction or spread of exotic invasive species, including aquatic and terrestrial plants, animals,
insects and pathogens. Precautions should be taken to wash and/or decontaminate all equipment utilized in the project
activities before entering and leaving the site. See the Arizona Department of Agriculture website for a list of prohibited
and restricted noxious weeds at https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/unitedstates/az.shtml and the Arizona Native Plant
Society https://aznps.com/invas for recommendations on how to control. To view a list of documented invasive species or
to report invasive species in or near your project area visit iMapInvasives - a national cloud-based application for tracking
and managing invasive species at https://imap.natureserve.org/imap/services/page/map.html.
To build a list: zoom to your area of interest, use the identify/measure tool to draw a polygon around your area of
interest, and select “See What’s Here” for a list of reported species. To export the list, you must have an
account and be logged in. You can then use the export tool to draw a boundary and export the records in a csv
file.
The construction or maintenance of water developments should include: incorporation of aspects of the natural
environment and the visual resources, maintaining the water for a variety of species, water surface area (e.g., bats
require a greater area due to in-flight drinking), accessibility, year-round availability, minimizing potential for water quality
problems, frequency of flushing, shading of natural features, regular clean-up of debris, escape ramps, minimizing
obstacles, and minimizing accumulation of silt and mud.
Page 10 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Minimization and mitigation of impacts to wildlife and fish species due to changes in water quality, quantity, chemistry,
temperature, and alteration to flow regimes (timing, magnitude, duration, and frequency of floods) should be evaluated.
Minimize impacts to springs, in-stream flow, and consider irrigation improvements to decrease water use. If dredging is a
project component, consider timing of the project in order to minimize impacts to spawning fish and other aquatic species
(include spawning seasons), and to reduce spread of exotic invasive species. We recommend early direct coordination
with Project Evaluation Program for projects that could impact water resources, wetlands, streams, springs, and/or
riparian habitats.
The Department recommends that wildlife surveys are conducted to determine if noise-sensitive species occur within the
project area. Avoidance or minimization measures could include conducting project activities outside of breeding
seasons.
Based on the project type entered, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required
(http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html).
Trenches should be covered or back-filled as soon as possible. Incorporate escape ramps in ditches or fencing along the
perimeter to deter small mammals and herptefauna (snakes, lizards, tortoise) from entering ditches.
Communities can actively support the sustainability and mobility of wildlife by incorporating wildlife planning into their
regional/comprehensive plans, their regional transportation plans, and their open space/conservation land system
programs. An effective approach to wildlife planning begins with the identification of the wildlife resources in need of
protection, an assessment of important habitat blocks and connective corridors, and the incorporation of these critical
wildlife components into the community plans and programs. Community planners should identify open spaces and
habitat blocks that can be maintained in their area, and the necessary connections between those blocks to be preserved
or protected. Community planners should also work with State and local transportation planning entities, and planners
from other communities, to foster coordination and cooperation in developing compatible development plans to ensure
wildlife habitat connectivity. The Department's guidelines for incorporating wildlife considerations into community
planning and developments can be found on the Widlife Friendly Guidelines portion of the Wildlife Planning page at
https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/.
Design culverts to minimize impacts to channel geometry, or design channel geometry (low flow, overbank, floodplains)
and substrates to carry expected discharge using local drainages of appropriate size as templates. Reduce/minimize
barriers to allow movement of amphibians or fish (e.g., eliminate falls). Also for terrestrial wildlife, washes and stream
corridors often provide important corridors for movement. Overall culvert width, height, and length should be optimized
for movement of the greatest number and diversity of species expected to utilize the passage. Culvert designs should
consider moisture, light, and noise, while providing clear views at both ends to maximize utilization. For many species,
fencing is an important design feature that can be utilized with culverts to funnel wildlife into these areas and minimize
the potential for roadway collisions. Guidelines for culvert designs to facilitate wildlife passage can be found on the home
page of this application at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/.
Based on the project type entered, coordination with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality may be required
(http://www.azdeq.gov/).
Based on the project type entered, coordination with Arizona Department of Water Resources may be required
(https://new.azwater.gov/).
Based on the project type entered, coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required
(http://www.usace.army.mil/)
Based on the project type entered, coordination with County Flood Control district(s) may be required.
Page 11 of 12
Arizona Game and Fish Department
project_report_go_away_ranch_sunrise_ranch_46042_47521.pdf
Project ID: HGIS-14916
Review Date: 11/10/2021 12:10:19 PM
Development plans should provide for open natural space for wildlife movement, while also minimizing the potential for
wildlife-human interactions through design features. Please contact Project Evaluation Program for more information on
living with urban wildlife at PEP@azgfd.gov or
at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/ and https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/LivingWith.
Vegetation restoration projects (including treatments of invasive or exotic species) should have a completed site-
evaluation plan (identifying environmental conditions necessary to re-establish native vegetation), a revegetation plan
(species, density, method of establishment), a short and long-term monitoring plan, including adaptive management
guidelines to address needs for replacement vegetation.
The Department requests further coordination to provide project/species specific recommendations, please
contact Project Evaluation Program directly at PEP@azgfd.gov.
Project Location and/or Species Recommendations:
HDMS records indicate that one or more Listed, Proposed, or Candidate species or Critical Habitat (Designated or
Proposed) have been documented in the vicinity of your project. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulatory authority over all federally listed species. Please contact USFWS Ecological
Services Offices at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ or:
Phoenix Main Office
Tucson Sub-Office
Flagstaff Sub-Office
9828 North 31st Avenue #C3
201 N. Bonita Suite 141
SW Forest Science Complex
Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517
Tucson, AZ 85745
2500 S. Pine Knoll Dr.
Phone: 602-242-0210
Phone: 520-670-6144
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Fax: 602-242-2513
Fax: 520-670-6155
Phone: 928-556-2157
Fax: 928-556-2121
This review has identified riparian areas within the vicinity of your project. During the planning stage of your project,
avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to riparian areas identified in this report. Riparian areas play an
important role in maintaining the functional integrity of the landscape, primarily by acting as natural drainages that convey
water through an area, thereby reducing flood events. In addition, riparian areas provide important movement corridors
and habitat for fish and wildlife. Riparian areas are channels that contain water year-round or at least part of the year.
Riparian areas also include those channels which are dry most of the year, but may contain or convey water following
rain events. All types of riparian areas offer vital habitats, resources, and movement corridors for wildlife. The Pinal
County Comprehensive Plan (i.e. policies 6.1.2.1 and 7.1.2.4), Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Drainage Ordinance,
and Drainage Design Manual all identify riparian area considerations, guidance, and policies. Guidelines to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate impacts to riparian habitat can be found
at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/. Based on the project type entered, further consultation with
the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Pinal County may be warranted.
HDMS records indicate that Sonoran Desert Tortoise have been documented within the vicinity of your project area.
Please review the Tortoise Handling Guidelines found at: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/tortoise/
HDMS records indicate that Western Burrowing Owls have been documented within the vicinity of your project area.
Please review the western burrowing owl resource page at:
https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/speciesofgreatestconservneed/burrowingowlmanagement/.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 12 of 12
From:
David Jacobs
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Go Away Ranch, Z2021074 & S2021020
Date:
Wednesday, July 7, 2021 4:45:14 PM
Adam-
Our office recently received notification from your department regarding the Go Away Ranch
project located at the northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road. Although nearby
areas have been assessed for archaeological deposits and none were identified, the project area
has experienced extensive agricultural use and many times it obliterates the surface
manifestations of archaeological deposits. We recommend the applicant be reminded of
Arizona State Law A.R.S. § 41-865 that requires if human remains or burial goods are
encountered during any ground-disturbing activities on private lands, work in the immediate
vicinity must cease and the Director of the Arizona State Museum promptly notified. The
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office appreciates your cooperation with this office in
considering the impacts of development to cultural resources in the State of Arizona.
David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
From:
jroth@azstateparks.gov on behalf of AZSHPO - AZPARKS
<azshpo@azstateparks.gov>
Sent:
Monday, July 12, 2021 11:46 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change with Overlay and
Preliminary Plat - Go Away Ranch
Your Project Has Been Received...Thank You.
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:12 PM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon all,
As indicated in the previous e-mail, this update will serve as notification of applications we have
received from Pew and Lake, PLC – Jon Gillespie for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation in the Laveen Area Plan from Rural (0-1 d.u./acre) and Open Space to Large Lot
Residential (1-2 d.u./acre), Zone Change with Overlay from RU-43 to R1-18 RUPD and Preliminary Plat
with 101 lots for Go Away Ranch.
Applicable documents for review are available on the Online Permit Manager at:
https://accela.maricopa.gov/CitizenAccessMCOSS/Default.aspx. You can search for the case by using
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment case number CPA2021012, Zone Change case number Z2021074
and Preliminary Plat case number S2021020. A Technical Advisory Committee meeting for agencies
with technical comments is scheduled for August 3, 2021 at 9:45 a.m. Please contact me if you would
like to attend.
Best regards,
Adam Cannon
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-372-0292
adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital for construction permit applications.
Find information on our new permit process here.
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 11:03 AM
To: thelcrd@gmail.com; swilken@azmag.gov; vwolfley@azmag.gov; dan.penton@laveen.org;
manuel.burboa@laveen.org; council@laveen.org; jmburboa@msn.com; tophilhertel@hotmail.com;
sandy.hamilton.az@gmail.com; Kimberly.Antone.LUPZ@gric.nsn.us; alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov;
kathy.holsome@gmail.com; Eileen Baden (PRK) <Eileen.Baden@maricopa.gov>; kcotner@azmag.gov;
alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov; Andrew Cavalcant <acavalcant@azgfd.gov>;
debbie.keating@phoenix.gov; I_thompson@MCSO.maricopa.gov; price@phxhs.k12.az.us;
ehinojos@laveeneld.org; cristinaherrera@mail.maricopa.gov; JulieSyrmopoulos@mail.maricopa.gov;
Stella Sheridan - EMERMGTX <SheridanS@mail.maricopa.gov>; jimgovern@mcldaz.org;
rickcreakman@mail.maricopa.gov; redletter@azdot.gov; tbuschatzke@azwater.gov;
azshpo@azstateparks.gov; james.bloom@pinnaclewest.com
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Zone Change with Overlay and Preliminary Plat - Go Away Ranch
Good morning all,
This e-mail serves as notification of applications we have received from Pew and Lake, PLC – Jon
Gillespie for a Zone Change with Overlay from RU-43 to R1-18 RUPD and Preliminary Plat with 101 lots
for Go Away Ranch. Applicable documents for review are available on the Online Permit Manager at:
https://accela.maricopa.gov/CitizenAccessMCOSS/Default.aspx. You can search for the case by using
the Zone Change case number Z2021074 and Preliminary Plat case number S2021020. A Technical
Advisory Committee meeting for agencies with technical comments will be scheduled once a required
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is submitted to complement these cases. A subsequent notification
will be sent at that time. Please contact me if you would like to attend.
Best regards,
Adam Cannon
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-372-0292
adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital for construction permit applications.
Find information on our new permit process here.
Planning and Development Department
DATE:
August 31, 2022
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Adam Cannon, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 – Sunrise Ranch at South Mountain
Agenda Items: #3 - 5
Since the publishing of the staff report for the above case, staff received letters from
thirty-five (35) individuals opposed to the site. The letters indicate general opposition to
increased density in and around the Laveen area. Some letters are requesting a
reduction in the number of lots.
Attachments:
Opposition Correspondence (54 pages)
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
nancy harris <nharris526@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:33 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Agendas number five and six
I have lived in Laveen since 1984 and have watched our rural Community go from rural To Semi rural With much input
from its citizens. This project is over the top. We ask that you reconsider This project and help the citizens of Laveen
remain semi rural . Thank you… Nancy Harris… 2910 W. Ceton Drive. nharris525@yahoo.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
2
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
C Gunderson <carrsgun@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:51 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Case CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020
County Planner Adam Cannon,
I respectfully request the Planning and Zoning Commission deny cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 and
S2021020 as filed. The applicant's proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres (1.74 du/a) is incompatible
with the surrounding 1-plus acre properties in this rural, unique and special area of Laveen.
Below are just a few reasons to deny the case as filed and have the applicant work with the community to
address density and amend their plan.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Kind Regards,
Carolyn Gunderson
3514 W Cheyenne Dr.
Laveen AZ, 85339
From:
David Baker
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
case # CPA2021012
Date:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:40:16 AM
Hello Adam,
I, and my whole family are STRONGLY opposed to this request. Below are points as to why.
I hope that you, and everyone with any decision making authority truly listen to the community
(those that live and have lived here for decades), as we DO not want the higher density back in this
area………it does not conform or make sense.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use
with the 1-acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-diversified with small
lots, higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under-represented
in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+
acre properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of
Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20-acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and
failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of
Ordinance G-5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and
with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning
district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1
du/a. This development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins
Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely because
the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare
their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area
at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the
area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio
homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to
the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work
with the community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to
“check the box” and take the path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012,
Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a
compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation
of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open Space.
David Baker
Keller Williams Realty Phoenix
Cell:602.373.6345
E-mail: david@beinPhoenix.com
Visit my websites at
http://www.PhoenixLaveenHomes.com
http://www.LaveenRealEstate.co
http://www.LaveenAz85339.com
http://www.CasasLaveen.com
http://www.Laveenhomesforsale.net
Subscribe today to my YOUTUBE Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/dabaker2121
"Like" me on Facebook at Phoenix Residential Real Estate
From:
Steve Wene
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch Proposed Development
Date:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:10:36 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
Good morning Mr. Cannon,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Sunrise Ranch development in Laveen.
The reasons I’m opposed to this development are outlined below.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use
with the 1-acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-diversified with small
lots, higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under-represented
in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+
acre properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of
Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20-acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and
failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of
Ordinance G-5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and
with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning
district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1
du/a. This development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins
Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely because
the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare
their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area
at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the
area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio
homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to
the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work
with the community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to
“check the box” and take the path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012,
Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a
compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation
of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open Space.
Steve Wene
Shareholder
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4541
Office (602) 604-2189
www.law-msh.com
NOTE: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information. Further, if you are not the
intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it immediately. This e-mail and its attachments are
believed to be free of any virus or other defect; however, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
that the e-mail is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Moyes Sellers & Hendricks for any loss or
damage arising in any way from the use of the e-mail or attachments thereto.
2
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
A close up of a sign
Description automatically generated with low confidence
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Veronica Wene <Veronica@southwesternutility.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 7:18 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch proposed development
Good morning Mr. Cannon,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Sunrise Ranch development in Laveen.
The reasons I’m opposed to this development are outlined below.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Regards,
Veronica Wene
Vice President Client Relations
520‐624‐1460 x 107
520‐345‐3311 cell
Southwesternutility.com
3
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Irma Cazarez <irmacazarez@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:58 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch / Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Thank you for the opportunity to state my opinion on the above-referenced development. I write to you today
to inform you that I am opposed to the Sunrise Ranch development as proposed via cases
numbers CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020, and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning
Commission deny them as filed. The main issue at hand is incompatible land use given that the proposed
development would attempt to cram as many lots as possible on 58.04 acres of land.
I am a resident of the area, live directly south of the subject property and would be directly impacted by this
development. For many years my family and I have had the privilege of living south of Carver Mountain; an area that
offers both rural and low density living — a perfect condition where the desert, wildlife and mankind can safely coexist.
I support responsible, compatible development and growth. However, I am afraid that the proposed changes
by this developer do not align with the surrounding area. On the contrary, the plan is at a suburban density
level and simply does not align with the open space and surroundings. Such development would undoubtedly
disrupt the overall makeup of the community.
Ultimately, it is important to note that the main concern is density. The development can certainly be a great addition to
the area but not as proposed. As a community we are open to the opportunity to further discuss the development with the
developer and their legal team and arrive at a more agreeable plan that better aligns with our community.
Thank you for your time, attention and consideration.
Irma Cazarez
3517 W Shawnee Dr
Laveen, AZ 85339
602-363-5381
4
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Gina Abbott <abbogina0@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:13 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Zoning Cases in Carver Canyon
I would like to voice my opposition to cases CPA 202‐1012, Z 2021074 and S 202‐1020. I am asking respectfully that you
deny these three cases and remand the applicant to work with our community on a compatible zoning district and
density that will meet the current Laveen area plan designation of rural densities (0‐1 du/a) and open space.
I purchased land out here and just recently built a house on it. I did so because I love this area because it is like living out
in the country! All the houses are on an acre or more and it is so peaceful and quiet out here. We also have a very
diverse population of wildlife and all of the dense housing is going to be pushing out all of the wildlife. If all of these
companies start putting in these housing developments in our area, it is going to end up being crowded and it will look
like we are living in the city! The city is exactly what I wanted to get away from! To me density is the number one issue
that all of us are fighting. I am not against the community being built, but I am against the 101 houses that they would
like to put on that 58.04 acres. I hope that they will be willing to meet with those of us in the community and I’m sure
that we can come to a compromise.
Again, I strongly oppose that community being built with 101 lots on the 58.04 acres. I ask that you respectfully deny
cases CPA 202‐1012, Z 2021074 and S2021020.
Thank you for your time,
Regina Abbott
3832 W Fox Road
Laveen AZ 85339
5
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Ines Hughes <ines.hughes@googlemail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 9:38 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Zoning Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Good evening,
Reference: Sunrise Ranch located at the NE corner of 35th Avenue & Carver Rd
I am a close neighbour to the location and I am in opposition to the CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020. I respectfully
request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases.
The developer's plans do not fit our community. The proposed plans are way too dense for this area.
Our community has banned together against this proposal as it stands, but are willing to work with the developer. There
are profitable options that will fit with our community.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties that
border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
This is what the neighborhood currently looks like. Their density proposals just don't fit.
Thank you,
Ines Hughes
4206 W Carver Rd
6
85339, Laveen, AZ
‐‐
Anything is good if it is made of chocolate.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
7
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
James Hughes <perldude69@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 9:11 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Ines Hughes
Subject:
Zoning Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Good evening,
Reference: Sunrise Ranch located at the NE corner of 35th Avenue & Carver Rd
I am in opposition to the CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 and respectfully request the Planning & Zoning
Commission deny the Cases.
The developer's plans do not fit our community. The proposed plans are way too dense for this area.
Our community has banned together against this proposal as it stands, but are willing to work with the developer. There
are profitable options that will fit with our community.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties that
border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
This is what the neighborhood currently looks like. Their density proposals just don't fit.
Thank you,
James Hughes
4206 W Carver Rd
8
85339, Laveen, AZ
9
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Paul Banta <pwbantaz@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:56 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
Wish to register for Sept 1 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Please register me to attend the Sept 1st Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I am not sure if I will attend
telephonically or via my computer.
I wish to donate my speaking time to Cyd Manning.
I am opposed to all Case Numbers ‐ CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020 (agenda items 5 &6)
Please send the call‐in and computer instructions.
Thank you,
Paul Banta
480‐353‐6014
10
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jamie Gunderson <jamiegun@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:50 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
CASE #: CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Dear Councilmembers, and members of the Planning Commission,
I am opposed the the new development Sunrise Ranch located at the NE corner of 35th Avenue & Carver Rd.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots,
higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of
Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre
properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
In order to emphasize that this is not merely “NIMBYISM”, we have gathered concerns from different
neighborhoods which demonstrate that specific needs and problems cannot be solved with a universal
approach. We have appended representative examples from different communities across the City that
provide very specific and valid concerns.
I am NOT opposed to affordable housing and looking at ways to increase density in ways which can
improve affordability, but we are opposed to a blanket approach.
I feel that a legislative approach that works toward meeting these objectives can be crafted in
collaboration with us which would lead to a stronger city and have long lasting positive effects on those
who live here and will choose to live here.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jamie Gunderson
3514 W Cheyenne Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339
11
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Sarah VanSchyndel <sarah.vanschyndel@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:07 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
Sunrise ranch case @ 35th Ave and Carver Rd
Hello,
I am writing in opposition to the 3 sunrise ranch cases at the NE corner of 35th avenue and Carver Rd. The three cases
are:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), case # CPA2021012 – this is like the City’s General Plan and they are
asking to revise it from 0‐1 du/a Rural & Open Space to 1‐2 Large Lot Residential
Zoning district – case # Z2021074 and they are requesting a change from RU‐43 to R1‐18
Site plan – case S2021020 is their plat of the 101 units
I oppose this project mainly because the density is incompatible with the area, but also for the following reasons:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Thank you for your time,
Sarah Johns
3913 W Carver Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339
12
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
EMAIL TEAM <garyinlaveen@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:05 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
CPA 2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Hello,
I am opposed to all 3 of the cases above. These project just do not fit in with our rural area/life style.
Please say no to these projects. Also, our roads will not handle the high volume of traffic.
Thanks, Gary Jordan
garyinlaveen@yahoo.com
602-245-4465
13
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Ol' West <davidinlaveen@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:53 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
Opposed: Case Numbers - CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020
P&Z Hearing Date – September 1, 2022
Agenda Items ‐ 5 and 6
Case Numbers ‐ CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020
David Meyer, DavidinLaveen@gmail.com, 480 330 4706
Identification – Opposed to all three cases
Do Not Wish to Speak
Please keep our area 1 house per acre! I am opposed to high density housing for the following reasons:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
14
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Laura Murphy <pikemurphy@msn.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:51 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Voice of Opposition to Sunrise Ranch Application
I am writing today in opposition to the Sunrise Ranch proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres. This plan is incompatible
with the current neighbor density of one home per acre. This area of Laveen is rural, with small ranches and in some
cases original homesteads that date back 100 years. The plan proposed is in stark contrast to the existing
neighborhood. Do not consider the error by the City of Phoenix in granting high density housing to Carver Canyon as a
template for more mistakes. Also, do not believe the false tales spun by the developer to make the reader believe that
Sunrise Ranch will "Seamlessly fit" into the existing fabric of the area. Thoughtful development is welcomed by
established homeowners in this area if the applicant is willing to work with the community.
I respectfully request the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the cases CPA2021012, Z2021074, and S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will meet
the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Lisa Pike
4824 West Estrella Drive
Laveen, AZ
Swipe ent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
15
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Kingston, Tom <tom.kingston@sap.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:34 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Kingston, Tom
Subject:
Re: Opposition to Case CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Kingston, Suzanne <suzanne.kingston@supportivecaremedgroup.com>
wrote:
Dear Mr. Cannon ‐
I am opposed to the three above cases for the following reasons:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use
with the 1‐acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots,
higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of
Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre
properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of
Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed
in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐
5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and with
Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning district
are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1
du/a. This development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins
Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because
the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare
their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at
1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the
area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes
(with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing
density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work
with the community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to
“check the box” and take the path of least resistance
16
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074
& S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible
zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural
Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Kingston
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data,
financial information). If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering
the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is
strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by
replying to this message AND deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If,
due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this
message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
17
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Kingston, Suzanne <suzanne.kingston@supportivecaremedgroup.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:08 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Case CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Dear Mr. Cannon ‐
I am opposed to the three above cases for the following reasons:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Kingston
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity
to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). If you are not the
intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error,
please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message AND deleting the message and any accompanying
files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply
to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender.
From:
Mark Cummings
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Sunrise Ranch
Date:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:23:44 AM
Mr Cannon,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the Sunrise Ranch project being proposed for
the 35th Ave and Carver Rd area. The following points have been discussed by residents of the
surrounding area. My residence is south of Carver Rd at 27th Ave.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use
with the 1-acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-diversified with small
lots, higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under-represented
in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+
acre properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of
Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20-acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and
failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of
Ordinance G-5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and
with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning
district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1
du/a. This development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins
Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely because
the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare
their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area
at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the
area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio
homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to
the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work
with the community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to
“check the box” and take the path of least resistance
In addition to the concerns above I have concerns about traffic density. The high density
(relative to this area) housing already under construction will significantly increase traffic and
congestion. More high density development exacerbates this problem.
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012,
Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a
compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation
of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open Space.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Mark Cummings
10606 S 27th Ave
Laveen
480-229-1056
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Paul Franckowiak <paul.franckowiak@outlook.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 10:43 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Cyd Manning; JEN LEITCH
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch 35th and Carver.
The 12 page proposal I received on this is way different than what was presented at the meeting we had
where the applicant's attorney mentioned their helping with hill removal.
Also included in the proposal was this chart. (p.11)
This is just part of the 12 page report but it is included.
Pretend that all you received about the plans was this chart.
Would you approve this?
I built a big house on 4 acres not 300 yards from this proposed development. When I built it, I was hoping to
double the 30 ft. max height restriction. My attorney told me I was being ridiculous and I dropped the idea.
If zoning is really just half of what really is ok, with your response to my opposition to Sunrise Ranch, I need
you to address my request for pre‐approval of a 60 foot high sky lounge addition to my house. I am planning
on the roof of the sky lounge generating a laser show that spells out "Fairness" on nearby mountain
faces. (We are working on a Kobe Bryant tribute too). If you can not give me specifics on the sky lounge,
please at least let me know how many houses I have to build at once in order to have you guys change the
rules for me. You always tell guys building one or two houses what they can and cannot do. You let guys
building a bunch of houses do what they want. Please make public the threshold you are applying uniformly
in granting exceptions. If I have to build 10 to 15 houses (all with 60 foot sky lounges) just to get one, I can do
that. Shining "Fairness" on the mountains in my neighborhood is that important to me! (and with 4 acres, 10 ‐
15 houses should fit easy.)
I really want a response on the threshold question.
Flippant but not kidding,
Paul Franckowiak Rt.B
2
10109 S 29th Drive
Laveen Az. 85339
Rt.B ,<<Ready to Build>>
3
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 10:01 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Steven Dougherty
Subject:
Site plan –Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Adam Cannon or to whom it concerns,
completely incompatible with the area!
My opposition:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
4
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Sincerely,
Steven Dougherty
Steven@StevenDougherty.com
480‐430‐6130 Cell
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner. The use or any action or reliance
on the communication is strictly prohibited by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‐2521.
5
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Paul Banta <pwbantaz@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 5:11 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
opposition too: case # CPA2021012, case # Z2021074, case # Z2021074
Dear Sir:
Just a short note to register my opposition to this attempt to increase the housing density in this area of Laveen.
There are lots of areas in Laveen and the valley that are appropriate for high density housing. However, this area has
been slowly developing as a low density, almost rural community. 25 years from now this small area will remain a
unique place to live; IF the city and county do not agree to re‐zoning and allowing high density development.
Thanks,
Paul Banta
6
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Donis Canisales <cyrannn@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 4:04 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
We respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that
will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Sincerely,
Donis and Frank Canisales
11020 S 35th Ave
Laveen, Az 85339
Francisco and Becca Canisales
9411 S 33rd Ave
Laveen, Az 85339
Sent from my iPhone
7
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Elizabeth Banta <ebanta3938@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 3:55 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Jon Gillespie
Subject:
case # CPA2021012, case # Z2021074, and case # S2021020
8/28/22
Maricopa County Planning and Development Staff
Attn: Adam Cannon
301 W Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: case # CPA2021012, case # Z2021074, and case #
S2021020
Dear Mr. Cannon, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors:
The Sunset Cove/Carver Foothills area is unique to Laveen and Maricopa County. I am writing to urge Maricopa County’s
leaders to retain the current rural, one home per acre status that makes this area so beautiful. Large lots are under‐
represented in Laveen. Once developed at higher density there is no going back. I ask the Planning & Zoning
Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the
community on a compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural
Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Banta
3938 W Kayenta Trail
Laveen, AZ 85339
480‐353‐6019
Ebanta3938@gmail.com
8
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Linda Abegg <linda.abegg@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 2:09 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Good Afternoon,
I am writing to request the denial of Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020. This area of Laveen maintains its rural
heritage and should be allowed to continue doing so. Please protect the integrity of this area and require that the
developer work with the community in a lower and acceptable density.
Thank you,
Linda Abegg
5407 W Winston Dr, Laveen Village, AZ 85339
9
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Cyd Manning <SweetBeat@q.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 1:04 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch / Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Importance:
High
Mr. Cannon,
I am opposed to the subject Sunrise Ranch development and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning
Commission deny cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020 as filed. The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on
58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of
Laveen. I live in close proximity and can see this property from my home, and will be directly affected by what is
developed. I support responsible, compatible development and growth. This plan is at a suburban density level that
does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning districts
and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR
THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and that
border their parcel to the north, east and south (see Area Map attached below). Instead they are narrowly focused on
only comparing their plan to the Carver Canyon project and Whispering Hills development.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. I’ve been engaged in every one of
the “quarry” cases with this property since 2007. The City of Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20‐
acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by
Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and
with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning district are being
proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant claims it to
be so in their narrative (see General Plan map attached below). The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to
the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35. The
applicant is also misrepresenting density numbers by stating and using comparisons to a property’s “developable
acreage”. The community, County and City are not ignorant. We all know the standard density calculation is number of
lots / gross acreage.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not true. 76% of
the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft.
backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area. Their use of the SRP canal as a buffer to me
and my neighbors to the south is ridiculous.
All of this illustrates the applicant’s ignorance of compatible density, community engagement and careful planning/work
with both City and County to preserve low density that has been planned here for years and is woefully under‐
represented in Laveen.
10
The applicant’s initial notification letter was dated December 23, 2021 and their sole neighborhood meeting was held on
January 6, 2022. During that meeting, I and others were very clear that this level of density was completely
incompatible and unacceptable. We asked them to address density and hold another neighborhood meeting prior to
the public process. They agreed to do that but never did. There is also no formal record of an LPC/LCRD
recommendation or public input from that forum. In reviewing your Staff report, the applicant failed to correctly
describe the intense neighborhood opposition to their planned density. Simply put, density is the #1 concern and the
applicant has ignored the community and refused to address it.
I last spoke to the applicant on 17 August and again provided the same feedback as in January, which was in summary:
This is a pretty plan but still way too dense and needs to be all acre homes or at a maximum level of 60 lots at 1
du/a to have a compatible density with the area. More lots and higher density will negatively impact the
livability for both existing and future residents.
During that conversation, I specifically reminded the applicant that density has been and is the number one
issue. Again, I asked for density to be addressed and Mr. Anderson replied they were not interested in reducing
any lots and planned to move forward regardless of the community.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the community,
address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the path of least
resistance. Therefore I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the three cases as filed and
remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current
Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Thank you for including this in the record of cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020.
Best regards,
Cyd Manning
3220 W. Ceton Drive
480‐747‐0769
sweetbeat@q.com
Map Detailing Sunrise Ranch is Incompatible Land Use
11
General Plan for Laveen – Area of Carver Foothills to South Mountain Park and 27th Avenue to 51st Avenue
12
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
John Knight <john.knight@aircomm.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 29, 2022 8:29 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Cyd Manning; Dean D.; johnknight
Subject:
Extreme Opposition to the below Cases along with Concerns
Attachments:
Z2021074 - 8_2_2022 - 6TH SUB - NARRATIVE.pdf; Z2021074 - 8_2_2022 - 6TH SUB - ZONING
EXHIBIT.pdf; 8472.pdf
Importance:
High
Mr. Cannon. We have been living in this pristine area adjacent to South Mountain for almost 20
years. We bought and built here because this area was zoned for one house per acre. Thanks to the
greed of the County. Property Owners and Builders, the Commitment in the Laveen Plan 30 years ago has
become a farce. This is a one-of-a-kind sacred Mountain Preserve. The entire area South of the Carver
Hills is one home per acre. The County and City originally set that line at Baseline. Enough is Enough.
There are 3 separate cases that will move together but be heard separately:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), case # CPA2021012 – this is like the City’s General Plan and they are
asking to revise it from 0‐1 du/a Rural & Open Space to 1‐2 Large Lot Residential
Zoning district – case # Z2021074 and they are requesting a change from RU‐43 to R1‐18
Site plan – case S2021020 is their plat of the 101 units
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
2
Even at one home per acre, when it rains in this area, flooding is getting worse. Change that to more
than one home per acre and that devastation will increase. This is a beautiful dark sky equestrian,
private, small airfield area where density does not fit and actually creates great concerns with high
density. All of Laveen has been changed except this area. Please help us to Navigate again what is
clearly another play for individual rights and homes to be weekended.
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
John Knight
VP Integrated Solutions
P: (602) 237-4915
C: (602) 549-1885
E: john.knight@aircomm.com
W: www.aircomm.com
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
|
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Tayler Bell <taylerbell691@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 29, 2022 3:52 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
OPPOSITION of Sunrise Ranch at South Mountain
Hello, I am writing to express my extreme OPPOSITION of the above development. I live
on 35th avenue south of the proposed development and have seen over and over again
developers take advantage of what used to be one of the last rural areas bordering
Phoenix. Dobbins road USED to be a buffer between high density homes and farm land.
This is no longer the case and our rural farm land is being stripped by
development. Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-
diversified with small lots, higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are
extremely under-represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR
THEM! The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s
existing 1+ acre properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The city is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely
because the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently
fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very
compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of
the area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of
patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in
comparison to the existing density of this special area. Sunrise Ranch could be a great
addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the community,
address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box”
and take the path of least resistance.
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012,
Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community
on a compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan
designation of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open Space.
Tayler Burchard
602.370.5261
taylerbell691@yahoo.com
2
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 29, 2022 3:40 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch / Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Mr. Cannon,
I'm writing in regards to the cases involving "Sunrise Ranch" that will be before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on Thursday, Sept. 1.
I respectfully ask that you deny the cases as filed.
My wife and I live just south of this property and can see it from our front patio. We have lived all over
the Valley and specifically moved to this area because of its combination of rural Arizona nature and
downtown city access, which make it the most unique place in the entire Valley. We also understood
that Laveen was an up-and-coming area, ripe for growth, which we saw as a benefit. However, that
growth is beginning to take the form of every other suburban city in Arizona and the country, stripping
Laveen of what makes it such a better place to live.
The applicant claims that this project will “achieve the City’s core value of producing “Diverse
Neighborhoods” with an “array of housing types and lifestyle options to meet the needs of an array of
residents.” But it’s doing the exact opposite. It is constructing more of the same type of housing that is
flooding Baseline Road and 51st Ave and copying what already exists in Chandler, Gilbert and any
other suburb in America.
People come to Laveen because of its rural landscape and lifestyle - not because it’s like Chandler or
Gilbert. It’s what makes us distinct from the rest of the Valley and highlights advantages that no other
community has.
While new developments along Baseline Road and 51st Ave are cramming as many homes into as
little space as possible, this particular area is ideal for the rural landscape and lifestyle that defines
Laveen and separates it from the rest of the Valley.
The applicant makes comparisons to properties to the north, but fails to make mention of the natural
physical barrier that separates it from those neighborhoods. The hill in the middle of their property
and Carver Mountain make a clear distinction from this part of the community. Its real neighbors and
comparisons are south of Carver Mountain:
- The surrounding residences that are not HOA developments and sit on large lots
- The property on the SEC of 35th Ave and Carver Road, which is zoned at RE-35 with a 1.08 du/a
- And the quarry property to the west that is in the process of being rezoned to 1.2 du/a (after
extensive work and cooperation between the developer, the city, and the neighbors)
There is no physical barrier to these neighbors like Carver Mountain and “the hill” provide to the north.
(Claiming the SRP canal creates this barrier is laughable and disingenuous.)
3
Everything beginning at this property and continuing south of Carver Mountain is designated for and
occupied by people who value a low density, large lot rural-style community. And these properties
aren’t ranches prime for future development. They are homes with families who have been living here
for decades and will continue to live here for decades more.
Most importantly, the applicant’s showmanship in pretending to engage the community’s input is
disrespectful, considering they have done nothing to address the most important area of concern,
which is the density.
So, I ask that the Planning & Zoning Commission please deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 &
S2021020 as filed and encourage the applicant to put forth a better effort at being a good neighbor on
this project.
We have proven that we are willing to work toward responsible, compatible development in this area
and are willing do so again on this site.
Thank you,
Bret Burchard
11244 S 35th Ave
From:
Cyd Manning
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch / Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020
Date:
Sunday, August 28, 2022 1:05:31 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
Importance:
High
Mr. Cannon,
I am opposed to the subject Sunrise Ranch development and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny cases
CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020 as filed. The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible
land use with the 1-acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen. I live in close proximity and can see this
property from my home, and will be directly affected by what is developed. I support responsible, compatible development and
growth. This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-diversified with small lots, higher zoning districts and
apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under-represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and that border their parcel
to the north, east and south (see Area Map attached below). Instead they are narrowly focused on only comparing their plan to the
Carver Canyon project and Whispering Hills development.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. I’ve been engaged in every one of the “quarry”
cases with this property since 2007. The City of Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20-acre portion of the parcel in
2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020. The
community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the
General Plan designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This development serves as a
transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant claims it to be so in their
narrative (see General Plan map attached below). The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue
and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35. The applicant is also misrepresenting
density numbers by stating and using comparisons to a property’s “developable acreage”. The community, County and City are not
ignorant. We all know the standard density calculation is number of lots / gross acreage.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not true. 76% of the lots are
small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in
comparison to the existing density of this special area. Their use of the SRP canal as a buffer to me and my neighbors to the south is
ridiculous.
All of this illustrates the applicant’s ignorance of compatible density, community engagement and careful planning/work with both
City and County to preserve low density that has been planned here for years and is woefully under-represented in Laveen.
The applicant’s initial notification letter was dated December 23, 2021 and their sole neighborhood meeting was held on January 6,
2022. During that meeting, I and others were very clear that this level of density was completely incompatible and unacceptable. We
asked them to address density and hold another neighborhood meeting prior to the public process. They agreed to do that but never
did. There is also no formal record of an LPC/LCRD recommendation or public input from that forum. In reviewing your Staff report,
the applicant failed to correctly describe the intense neighborhood opposition to their planned density. Simply put, density is the #1
concern and the applicant has ignored the community and refused to address it.
I last spoke to the applicant on 17 August and again provided the same feedback as in January, which was in summary:
This is a pretty plan but still way too dense and needs to be all acre homes or at a maximum level of 60 lots at 1 du/a to have a
compatible density with the area. More lots and higher density will negatively impact the livability for both existing and future
residents.
During that conversation, I specifically reminded the applicant that density has been and is the number one issue. Again, I
asked for density to be addressed and Mr. Anderson replied they were not interested in reducing any lots and planned to move
forward regardless of the community.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the community, address density and
amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the path of least resistance. Therefore I respectfully
request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the three cases as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a
compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open
Space.
Thank you for including this in the record of cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020.
Best regards,
Cyd Manning
3220 W. Ceton Drive
480-747-0769
sweetbeat@q.com
Map Detailing Sunrise Ranch is Incompatible Land Use
General Plan for Laveen – Area of Carver Foothills to South Mountain Park and 27th Avenue to 51st Avenue
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
nancy harris <nharris526@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:33 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Agendas number five and six
I have lived in Laveen since 1984 and have watched our rural Community go from rural To Semi rural With much input
from its citizens. This project is over the top. We ask that you reconsider This project and help the citizens of Laveen
remain semi rural . Thank you… Nancy Harris… 2910 W. Ceton Drive. nharris525@yahoo.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
2
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
C Gunderson <carrsgun@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:51 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Case CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020
County Planner Adam Cannon,
I respectfully request the Planning and Zoning Commission deny cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 and
S2021020 as filed. The applicant's proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres (1.74 du/a) is incompatible
with the surrounding 1-plus acre properties in this rural, unique and special area of Laveen.
Below are just a few reasons to deny the case as filed and have the applicant work with the community to
address density and amend their plan.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Kind Regards,
Carolyn Gunderson
3514 W Cheyenne Dr.
Laveen AZ, 85339
From:
David Baker
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
case # CPA2021012
Date:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:40:16 AM
Hello Adam,
I, and my whole family are STRONGLY opposed to this request. Below are points as to why.
I hope that you, and everyone with any decision making authority truly listen to the community
(those that live and have lived here for decades), as we DO not want the higher density back in this
area………it does not conform or make sense.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use
with the 1-acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-diversified with small
lots, higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under-represented
in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+
acre properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of
Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20-acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and
failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of
Ordinance G-5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and
with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning
district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1
du/a. This development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins
Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely because
the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare
their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area
at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the
area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio
homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to
the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work
with the community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to
“check the box” and take the path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012,
Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a
compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation
of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open Space.
David Baker
Keller Williams Realty Phoenix
Cell:602.373.6345
E-mail: david@beinPhoenix.com
Visit my websites at
http://www.PhoenixLaveenHomes.com
http://www.LaveenRealEstate.co
http://www.LaveenAz85339.com
http://www.CasasLaveen.com
http://www.Laveenhomesforsale.net
Subscribe today to my YOUTUBE Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/dabaker2121
"Like" me on Facebook at Phoenix Residential Real Estate
From:
Steve Wene
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Sunrise Ranch Proposed Development
Date:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:10:36 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
Good morning Mr. Cannon,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Sunrise Ranch development in Laveen.
The reasons I’m opposed to this development are outlined below.
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use
with the 1-acre plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over-diversified with small
lots, higher zoning districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under-represented
in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+
acre properties and that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of
Phoenix erred in approving high density on the 20-acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and
failed in their responsibility to revert the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of
Ordinance G-5020. The community has worked tirelessly for years to rectify this situation and
with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan designation and zoning
district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1
du/a. This development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins
Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0-1 acre development in this area merely because
the applicant claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare
their plan to the SEC of 35th Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area
at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE-35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the
area” are not true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio
homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to
the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work
with the community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to
“check the box” and take the path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012,
Z2021074 & S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a
compatible zoning district and density that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation
of Rural Densities (0-1 du/a) and Open Space.
Steve Wene
Shareholder
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4541
Office (602) 604-2189
www.law-msh.com
NOTE: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information. Further, if you are not the
intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it immediately. This e-mail and its attachments are
believed to be free of any virus or other defect; however, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
that the e-mail is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Moyes Sellers & Hendricks for any loss or
damage arising in any way from the use of the e-mail or attachments thereto.
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Nicole Glasgow <nicole.glasgow821@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3:00 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S20210
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in opposition of this case as it is proposed ‐ mostly due to the density. The proposed density is too high for our
area of 1 house per acre. There are not many areas in Laveen like ours and we will fight to preserve our rural feel and
large lot properties. We moved here 10 years ago for those exact features. A couple other reasons we oppose this site
plan and zoning case are:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre plus
properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and that
border their parcel to the north, east and south.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not true. 76% of
the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft.
backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
For these reasons, we respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 &
S2021020 as filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density
that will meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Respectfully,
Thomas and Nicole Glasgow
3717 W Carver Rd
Laveen,AZ 85339
2
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Stephanie Hurd <hurdles10@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 6:18 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
Case Numbers - CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020, item #s 5 & 6
Hello,
Re: Case Numbers - CPA2021012, Z2021074 and S2021020, item #s 5 & 6
I strongly oppose the above mentioned cases. The density is completely incompatible with the adjacent
land. This special part of Laveen has has acre lots and any new properties coming in should compliment
that and definitely not be as dense as they're proposing. There are some great areas in Laveen to put
1.74 du but not here. This is a unique part of Laveen that demands respect.
To keep it short, I've been involved in the community for 15 years and have been fighting for great
development. we'd love to see it but it's not ok to accept less than great. This isn't even adequate. I
completely concur with Cyd Manning and she's welcome to use any of my time to speak. Not sure if I can
make the meeting but I will try.
Stephanie Hurd
Hurdles10@gmail.com
602-790-2205
3
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Chris <chris@candssweeping.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 7:50 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
case # Z2021074
Site plan – case S2021020
Dear Mr. Cannon,
I viewed the proposed zoning exhibit for Sunrise Ranch at South Mountain. I am in opposition of high density housing in
the area of 35th Avenue and Carver. It is not in keeping with the area and I believe it will cause a dangerous traffic issue. I
would also like to add the following bullet points of opposition to the applicants plan:
The applicant’s proposed plan of 101 lots on 58.04 acres at 1.74 du/a is incompatible land use with the 1‐acre
plus properties in this very unique and special area of Laveen.
This plan is at a suburban density level that does not belong in a rural, open space area.
Density has been and is the number one issue. Laveen has been over‐diversified with small lots, higher zoning
districts and apartments. Large acre lots are extremely under‐represented in all of Laveen and THIS AREA IS THE
PLACE FOR THEM!
The applicant completely ignores comparison to the vast number of the area’s existing 1+ acre properties and
that border their parcel to the north, east and south.
The applicant’s comparison to Carver Canyon is disingenuous and unrealistic. The City of Phoenix erred in
approving high density on the 20‐acre portion of the parcel in 2007, and failed in their responsibility to revert
the zoning in 2011 as required by Stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020. The community has worked tirelessly for
years to rectify this situation and with Councilmember Garcia’s support, reduction to the General Plan
designation and zoning district are being proposed.
The Whispering Hills development is north of the Carver Foothills and is less dense at 1.1 du/a. This
development serves as a transition to the higher densities north towards Dobbins Road.
The City is NOT showing a trend away from 0‐1 acre development in this area merely because the applicant
claims it to be so in their narrative. The applicant conveniently fails to compare their plan to the SEC of 35th
Avenue and Carver Road which is very compatible with the area at 1.08 du/a and zoning of RE‐35.
Claims by the applicant that Sunrise Ranch will “seamlessly fit into the existing fabric of the area” are not
true. 76% of the lots are small, suburban and essentially a bunch of patio homes (with 15 ft. front yard, 5 ft. side
yard and 20 ft. backyard setbacks) in comparison to the existing density of this special area.
Sunrise Ranch could be a great addition to the area if the applicant was truly willing to work with the
community, address density and amend their plan. Instead, they have chosen to “check the box” and take the
path of least resistance
I respectfully request the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Cases CPA2021012, Z2021074 & S2021020 as
filed and remand the applicant to work with the community on a compatible zoning district and density that will
meet the current Laveen Area Plan designation of Rural Densities (0‐1 du/a) and Open Space.
Christine A Danielson
2943 W. Ceton Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339
(602) 499‐1693
Sent from Mail for Windows
AppeaiofPIamingandZoningCommi§§ion
Recommenda†ion
lf†hePiaming&ZoningCommissionrecommendsapprovaIofapar†icuiarcaseitw冊beplaced
onac○nsen†agendafor†heBoardofSuperviso「shea「ing.However′if†hisappeaIformisreceived
W汀hin15ca!en dardaysf01lowingCommissionhearing,†hen†heagenda汀emw紺bepIacedon
†hereguiaragendafor†heBoardofSupervisorshearing"
>∴Subm旧hisfo「m†○†heMa「icopaCoun†yPlanning&Developmen†Depar†men†:
301W.」effersonS†ree†,1s†目oor,Sui†e170Phoenix,A「izona85003
FaxNumber:602-506-8510
HoursofOpera†ion:Monday-Friday8:00a.m.-5:00p.m.
> ThisappeaIcanaisobesubm冊edviae-maiia††hef01iowinge-maiiaddress:
PZAoDeal@ma i.ma「iCODa.aOV
ーAppealofPianning&ZoningCommissionRecommenda†ion
> TheAppeaiFormcanaisobesubm冊edon†heMa「icopaCoun†yPianning&Developmen†
Websi†ea††he fo=owingwebadd「ess:
h††D://w.ma ricoDa.aOV/799/Boards-and-Commissions
臆
Pleaseorinfc/ea〃y. fヽ . ∩_ ,
ーノヽ人′l「l>ぐ ○○レl′lじ●つ
CaseNumber/Projec†Name: CPA2.OZ.¥0し|.Z2.Oz¥01q、S2_02JO2.0
pIanning8壷ningC。mmissi。nHearingDa†e:ls,P`l、2LC)2-2-
Appellan†Name:lc「よMc‘…言、
Ma冊gAddress:l32_2.Oい.Cchc,〔Dr.
Ci†y,S†a†e,ZipCode: 」へJ硬∩、人乙∴てらう33q
TeiephoneNumber: 鳴O.「叩,Oて碕iE-mai一:ls血圧bぐO」団子Om
臆
謂諾霊eAppeaiof†heiコ示。咋L;のbleLc点usc
豊蕪葦葉書轟圭 ヽ ヽ 航s剛のゝ0・多、1崎のう小川呪う…史N〇千串を、
Appe=an†Signa†ure: 優れ≡∋ iD坤叫S叫びしな