Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19499 characters
From:
Pam Hall
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Santa Barbara Ranch Zone Change Application Z2021078 and CPA 2021009
Date:
Tuesday, November 2, 2021 5:14:25 PM
Dear Area Senior Planner,
I am writing to you to express my opposition to changing the zoning from R-43 (one house per
acre) to five residences per acre. One house per acre is ideal in our Morristown area, and
anything denser than that should require extensive water table and geologic studies prior to
issuing any decisions in zone changing applications.
Thank you for your consideration, and for taking time to read my email.
Sincerely,
Pam Hall
Morristown Homeowner and Concerned Resident
Sheryl Hamlin, Wickenburg, Arizona 1 | P a g e
sherylhamlin@gmail.com
760.668.2956
November 5, 2021
TO:
Maricopa Planning Commission
RE:
Santa Barbara Ranch # CPA2021009 and # Z2021078
The comments and questions in this testimony refer to the below listed actions. There is also material taken from the
Scenic Corridor document.
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5
d.u./ac.) # CPA2021009
2. Zone Change Request from RU-43 to R1-6 with RUPD Overlay # Z2021078
3. 06DEMO State Route 74 Scenic Corridor Design Guidelines
We should not have to be reminded that temperatures are increasing in Maricopa County and asphalt is a prime source
of heat retention, as this article points out:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/sustainability/articles/pavement_thermal.cfm
The Urban Heat Island can be experienced in Phoenix with regularity. Perhaps this is why Arizona is losing its luster for
retirees and transplants, as this article points out. Arizona’s unfettered development has taken a toll on the State’s
rankings.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumers/2021/10/19/phoenix-falls-rankings-retirement-
destinations-study-finds/8510407002/
As the drought continues and water supplies are threatened, why are we encouraging new pools and landscaping?
https://www.azfamily.com/weather/arizona_drought/arizonas-water-supply-to-face-cuts-after-water-shortage-
declaration-issued/article_6e62c93e-fec7-11eb-b086-0fd227ea946a.html
Desert vegetation is an excellent source of carbon sequestration.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/can-deserts-stop-global-warming-no-they-help-study-says-n73126
The removal of desert vegetation simply negates the efforts the State of Arizona is making to electrify transportation.
https://www.citizensjournal.us/arizona-and-california-race-toward-renewables/
The documents as submitted by the applicant are conceptual in nature and cannot even be considered as pre-planning,
let alone an implementable planning proposal. The attached matrix highlights just a few of the deficiencies of the
applicant’s submission.
If you want to increase housing, then a better idea would be to repurpose the Metro Center, shuttered Big Box Stores
and empty office buildings. Such a strategy would take advantage of the existing infrastructure and be less stressful on
the environment. Thank you for your consideration.
Sheryl Hamlin, Wickenburg, Arizona 2 | P a g e
sherylhamlin@gmail.com
760.668.2956
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request
from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.)
Pdf Page
Text from Document
Commentary/Question
p 13
The City of Surprise Water Resource Management
Department provided a letter of support for the
CPA which confirms their belief that the City will
ultimately be capable of supplying water to the
Property.
Define “ultimately”. What is the source for
this water? What is the delivery plan and
route? How can the parcels be designed
without these details?
p 8
The WTGA Area Plan designates the area already for
single family uses at a lesser density. The minor
increase in density from maximum two (2) d.u./ac. to
five (5) d.u./ac. will allow for appropriate planning of
infrastructure (water, sewer, paved roads) as well as
community amenities such as community and
neighborhood parks, schools and worship uses. A
coordinated and planned approach such as this
proposal is an overall improvement to the
Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding community and
the County.
Define “coordinated and planned
approach”. No such plan other than
parcel assemblage with a few concepts has
been presented at this point in time.
“Minor Increase” is a MAJOR
understatement. From RU-43 to R1-6 is a
MAJOR increase in density and one that is
inconsistent with the surrounding areas
and scenic corridor.
P 10
The increase in density will result in the preservation
of wash corridors and require the developers or home
builders to construct the public improvements
including roads, sewer or water systems to support the
increase in density.
How will preservation of wash corridors be
accomplished with increased density?
Where are detailed wash specifications?
Who are the homebuilders and where is
the Developer Agreement? This is a typical
master developer scheme. The master will
grade hundreds of acres and search for
homebuilders to buy the graded property
so that the master has essentially no
responsibility for standards and
completion. There should be a separate
analysis for sewer treatment including the
requirement for an on-site plant with
graphene membranes to improve
groundwater recharge and a planned
designation for the groundwater recharge.
P 11
The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will also
include stipulations to guarantee the development of a
harmonious transit system throughout the property. .
Define “harmonious transit system”.
Where is the traffic study showing the
effects of this project on 60 and 74?
P 11
Applicant is obviously in communication with Maricopa
County with respect to this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and companion rezone case (Z2021078).
Additionally, Applicant contacted the ASLD with
respect to the surrounding State Trust Land. ASLD does
not oppose the CPA application and is willing to work
with developers with respect to access over State Trust
Land to the Property.
“Does not oppose” is not equal to
“supports the application”. Where are the
supporting documents from the ASLD?
p 13
Applicant is working with the City of Surprise to ensure
that city water services will service the future
A “belief” is not a planning term. The City
of Surprise must show detailed
infrastructure plans for this project. Such a
Sheryl Hamlin, Wickenburg, Arizona 3 | P a g e
sherylhamlin@gmail.com
760.668.2956
residential communities planned for the Property. This
coordinated effort and master planning in concert with
the County’s review process promotes and protects
health with clean water solutions. The City of Surprise
Water Resource Management Department provided a
letter of support for the CPA which confirms their
belief that the City will ultimately be capable of
supplying water to the Property.
large annexation will most likely be subject
to a vote of the citizens so that they will be
apprised of the costs of new services.
When will this take place?
P 14
Although the proposed density of 3-5 dwelling units
per acre is higher than the RU-43 primarily adjacent to
the Property, a Buffer Zone will be included to
provide an area of transition.
Describe “Buffer Zone” and show how
many and where these buffer zones will be
placed on the site plan for the Master
Development.
Sheryl Hamlin, Wickenburg, Arizona 4 | P a g e
sherylhamlin@gmail.com
760.668.2956
06DEMO State Route 74 Scenic Corridor Design Guidelines (PDF).pdf
P 29
For new applicable commercial development,
encourage building height to be limited to 30 feet
within 500 feet of the center line of State Route
74 and limited to 40 feet from 500 feet to one-quarter
mile of the center line. Development should be limited
to two stories. New commercial development adjacent
to any rural or residential zoning district should
be limited to 20 feet in height within 100 feet of the
property line and provide a landscape buffer.
The application for the Santa Barbara
Ranch must map the rules for the Scenic
Corridor Guidelines back to the proposed
project by parcel.
P 27
A plant survey and salvage plan should be submitted at
the time of platting or precise plan submission.
No grading should be allowed until this is
completed by a licensed landscape
architect not associated with the developer
or his architect. The document should
include a plan to relocate/transplant all
Saguaro cacti, Ocotillo, Barrel and any
other transplantable desert vegetation. An
arrangement with a local nursery such as
Moon Valley must be made for the
preservation and eventual relocation of the
vegetation.
P 8
Scenic corridors are used by cities and counties
throughout Arizona and the United States as a way to
highlight unique aspects of an area or region. There
are four existing scenic corridors in Maricopa County,
including Carefree Highway, Wickenburg Highway
(Grand Avenue), Interstate 17, and State Route 74.
Scenic corridors, including the State Route 74 Scenic
Corridor, recognize that people live in these unique
areas for their high quality of life, and are intended to
highlight, promote, and preserve an area’s scenic and
environmental characteristics, and help reflect the
character of the communities in which they are
located.
This development will degrade and
eventually ruin the scenic corridor. Please
explain how this project will “promote and
preserve and area’s scenic and
environmental characteristics”.
Sheryl Hamlin, Wickenburg, Arizona 5 | P a g e
sherylhamlin@gmail.com
760.668.2956
Z2021078 NARR-RPTS-2.pdf
Zone Change Request from RU-43 to R1-6 with RUPD Overlay
P 7
Because of the distance from existing utilities and
services, residential development is several years away
from starting on this property.
No grading until schedule developed
including water plan, sewer plan, and plant
inventory and relocation plan. This type of
“trust me trust me” development should
have died in the last century.
P 3
This proposal will rezone approximately 1,003 gross
acres to create a vibrant mix of single-family
subdivisions.
The applicant should submit an example of
a previous project with similar attributes.
What is “vibrant mix”? Examples?
P 4
The amended development standards allow for a
minimum 3,000 square foot lot for detached single
family residential products. The minimum width lot for
detached single-family is modified to 40’. Potential
home builders may prefer a lower lot width for certain
situations to adjust to smaller home product or to
adapt the lots to potential curvilinear roads. The
purpose of the 3,000 square foot minimum is to
provide future developers with options as growth
dictates the needs of the local community. A maximum
of 5,000 units is also requested to allay any concerns of
being overbuilt and unsuitable for the 5 area as
expansion occurs. The required square foot average lot
area per dwelling unit provides 6,000 square feet for
each units; however, the potential for a 3,000 square
foot lot gives discretion and ability to navigate future
needs of the area.
Applicant should submit examples of
elevations and streetscapes for the 3,000
square foot lot project. Road systems must
be submitted and terms like “potential”
eliminated: “potential curvilinear roads”
How can 5,000 units be anything but
overbuilt? By what metric is the applicant
applying this term and on what metric is
the approval based?
November 5, 2021
Dear Commissioners:
RE: Santa Barbara Ranch/Highway 74 Scenic Corridor h # CPA2021009 and # Z2021078
AZCC Chair Márquez recently wrote a letter elaborating on ways to reduce the ozone level in Maricopa
County. In it she states:
…ADEQ has estimated that for the Phoenix-Mesa Non-attainment Area (NAA) to avoid reclassification to
“serious” under 2015 National Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard of 70 parts per billion,
1,337,335 traditional, internal combustion engine vehicles of the year 2008 or earlier will need to be
replaced by EV’s by January 1, 2023….
To read the full letter, click here: https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000016507.pdf
The Chair’s letter alluded to alternatives, but, said Chair Márquez, these alternatives were not the
prerogative of the AZCC.
Now, I must point out that there is an alternative that is in the purview of the Maricopa County Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission has the power to disapprove permits of housing tract sprawl
which force more drivers (commercial and personal) to drive further and further each year and which
remove carbon sequestering desert vegetation from helping the air.
The current zoning of the project area is RU 43 which allows no more than 1 house per acre. The area
around Highway 74, one of the last Scenic Corridors in the State of Arizona, should be no more than 1
house per 1 acre and ideally 1 house per five acres. According to Wikipedia, Morristown consists of 516
acres with a population of 209 (2.4 acres per person), so does it make sense to make a seismic change in
this density?
While AZCC and ADEQ are making forward looking plans and decisions, the Planning Commission is
approving projects reminiscent of Del Webb’s original Sun City in 1960
(https://suncityaz.org/discover/history/).
Surprise sprawl must be replaced with intelligent in-fill development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Hamlin
Wickenburg, Arizona
sherylhamlin@gmail.com
From:
Cassidy Nosekabel
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Local Concerns and recommendation against approving CPA2021009 Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Thursday, November 4, 2021 8:59:43 PM
Good evening,
My name is Cassidy Nosekabel and I am a fifth generation Morristown resident. As a lifetime
resident, allowing the Santa Barbara Ranch housing development to be built in our town
would destroy our community. Myself and all of the locals are adamantly against this
development. There are a plethora of reason to deny this development from being built but the
largest concerns I have are as follows:
1. Availability of public services are slim in Morristown. We do not have a police department,
a drainage system, or even a gas station. We do not have the resources necessary to support
3000 to 5000 additional homes, and growth that large and quickly will be devastating to the
few resources we do have.
2. Water. We have been told the city of Surprise will provide water to this development and
also that city of Surprise is planning to annex Morristown. With the city of Surprise owning
Morristown, they can drill wells into our fragile aquifer to support their community and still
technically refer to that as "City of Surprise" water. Most of the locals rely on their own wells
to provide water. Having this massive of a drain on the local aquifer will put the existing
locals in danger of running out of water. Obviously that is a huge concern for everyone.
3. The integrity of the town. Our town has always been a small, tight knit community.
Throwing in 5000 additional homes to this community will devastate these relationships and
our way of life. A huge majority of our town own livestock. Having 5000 extra households
mix with that lifestyle is a recipe for disaster. I am sure you have seen as well as I have how
quickly small hobby farmers and horse owners get pushed out of a community when a massive
development moves in next door. This would displace families that have lived here for
generations, something that is absolutely unacceptable.
Overall, with every fiber of my being, I will not and cannot support this development that will
upheave the great and historic community of Morristown, Arizona. I hope that you will take
my words to heart and really look at the negative impact this development will have on our
local community.
If you have any questions or concerns feel free to reach out to me.
Best,
Cassidy Nosekabel
cassidynosekabel@gmail.com
928-308-750
I
I
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT (CPA) & zoNING REQUEST
CASE # CPA2O21OO9 & 2,2021078 . SANTA BARBARA RANCH
DETAILS OF REQUEST:
Major Comprehensive PIan Amendment from Rural Densities (0 to 1 dwelling unit per acre) to Single Family -
Transitional Lot (Density Greater than 3 dwelling units per gross acre, but no more than 5 dwelling units per
gross acre). A rezoning from RU-43 to R1-6 RUPD (Single Family Residential with a Residential Unit plan of
Development) Overlay.
GENERAL LOCAIION OF THE APPROXIMAIELY 1.003 ACRES: Generally bounded by the US 60 on the
south, HwY 74 to the north, 251" Ave to the west and 239ft Ave to the east.
MAJOR REASONS FOR OPPOSITION:
be placed in the middle of a rural area. Proposed changes are much too drastic for the area. Density is
too high and many conflicts will result between differing lifestyle priorities. Neither the high density of
homes/people nor the Santa Barbara look of the development/landscape is a good fit for Morristown.
roads, traffic, public safety, schools, infrastructure, other services and environmental impacts were met
with one answer - they will all be handled by the city of Surprise as the development can only be built
upon annexation by Surprise. Although no supporting information was provided and no guarantees
made, residents were assured that any change was at least 10 years away. This does nothing to address
any of our concems. It should be noted too that most residents are not in favor of Surprise innexing any
more land to the north of its already existing borders.
Surprise, it makes no sense for the county to spend time and resources to perform technical ieviews and
impact studies based on current conditions. There could be any number of unforeseen circumstances in
10 years, the most important of which is the precarious status of water. Development should not be
allowed to continue as usual. The state, counties and cities all need to take proactive measures regarding
water instead of being reactive years down the road. If and when Surprise annexes this property, that
will be the time to request a plan amendment and a zoning change *ith th. city of Surpilse.
were well aware of its current rural zoning. As speculative investors, they have two main objectives -
protect their investment and maximize their profits. Any developer's goal is to insure that thlir property
has some kind of high density or preferred zoning grandfatherea in. the current land owners have little
firsthand knowledge of our local issues and share few of our concerns.
I / We oppose the Santa Barbara Ranch Zone Change Application 22021078 and CPA 2021009 and ask the
county to deny both requests.
.F=F.t =,- 4o, ,rr:--G.osa^t SBs(? ,r/ -ss+t. r{.,rr-. /rtoeprszr&rv
Name(s) t
'
Address
3t7- zst- al t z
/ 8-z A-^z t
Phone
Date