Extracted text (via pymupdf)
9247 characters
Windstone Ranch North Annexation and Zoning Case Citizen Participation Plan May 20, 2021 Background The City of Surprise (City) requires a citizen participation process and report for applications such as this PAD amendment. The purpose of the citizen review process is to: Ensure that applicants pursue early and effective citizen participation in conjunction with their applications, giving them the opportunity to understand and try to mitigate any real or perceived impacts their application may have on the community; Ensure that the citizens and property owners of the city have an adequate opportunity to learn about applications that may affect them and to work with applicants to resolve concerns at an early stage of the process; and Facilitate ongoing communication between the applicant, interested citizens and property owners, city staff, and elected officials throughout the application review process. The citizen review process is not intended to produce complete consensus on all applications, but to encourage applicants to be good neighbors and to allow for informed decision-making. Windstone Ranch North Citizen Participation Plan & Report The annexation area is 19.8964 gross acres of vacant land identified as Assessor Tax Parcel Number APN #’s 503-54-004A. The purpose of this annexation request is to have the City annex the parcel and then upon annexation, the City will adopt equivalent zoning per the Land Development Ordinances, Rural Residential (RR). The Applicant requests approval of a Zone Change for 19.8964 gross acres from Residential Ranch (RR) to Residential Medium Density (R-2) Lot Category B with a PUD Overlay. We met the City’s notification requirements, which are: • Notice of the citizen review meeting shall be provided by the planning and zoning division in the form of a public notice to the following, when applicable: o The notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published or circulated in the municipality at least 15 days prior to the meeting date. 2 City initiated. o For applications involving rezoning of land which abuts other municipalities or unincorporated areas of the county or a combination thereof, copies of the notice shall be transmitted to the planning agency of such governmental unit butting such land. City initiated. o For applications involving rezoning, subdividing, planned unit developments, site plans with uses permitted on a conditional basis, and legislative matters, all real property owners within a 200-foot or 300-foot radius, the city shall send copies of the notice by first class mail, no less than seven days prior to the hearing. We noticed at 300 feet. City initiated. o Any village committee or special community group which is located in the area of the proposed public hearing request or has considerable interest in the nature of the application; See City initiated list. o The head of any homeowner’s association or registered neighborhood within the public notice area established in item (3) indicated above. See City initiated list. Site Posting The site was posted on April 29, 2021 to alert interested citizens and stakeholders of our upcoming combined virtual and in-person open house on May 17, 2021. The photographs of the signs and affidavit are attached at Tab 1. The signs do not have the anticipated Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council hearings dates and will be updated as we learn these dates. Participation Report. After the notices were sent by staff and the site was posted, we did not field any telephone calls or emails of concern regarding the rezoning case. We held the combined virtual and in-person open house on Go-to-Meetings while we were in actual attendance at the Asante Prep. Academy School located 23251 N. 166th Drive in Surprise at 6:00 pm. During the open house, there were approximately eight (8) in-person attendees and no one participated virtually. The sign-in sheets are attached at Tab 2. Councilman Roland Winters was present along with City staff, Lloyd Abrams and Joshua Mike. The discussion topics included: • Confusion that some attendees were told the proposal was for multi-family uses • Traffic and under-built roadways were the over-riding concern of the attendees • Concerns with how drainage was handled in the area and as a part of this proposal • Will there be a greenbelt/buffer to county parcels • Connections into surrounding communities • Discussion on the traffic study 3 • Discussion of overall development in the area Specific Discussion: Two (2) of the attendees live adjacent to the proposed project. Prior to the neighborhood meeting, another attendee told them the proposed land use was for multi-family apartments and they were very concerned about having that kind of project next to their home. The 2 attendees asked questions about Windstone Ranch North density which was explained to them that the proposed density is 3.1 DU/AC. They asked about the number of stories the homes would be within the project was explained to them the north lots are limited to one-story, and the balance of the lots can be one or two-story homes. They asked about the north setback distance from the homes, and it was explained to them that the setback is landscaped with a community trail and the setback would be 50 to 95 feet. The 2 attendees had questions on how the 2 points of drainage coming from the north and how it was being designed for the project which was explained to them that the drainage and wash would be designed in a natural state as much as possible with tree and plant landscaping, hydro seeding, and material installed in the locations where the drainage would erode the banks. They asked about utilities such as Cox and if it would be available to the County residents to the North. Applicant said he would talk to the Engineer to find out if extending COX is possible. Applicant has connected with its Engineer regarding extending COX into the County Homes and it may be a possibility. The Applicant will pursue the opportunity to extend COX utilities to the County Homes on the north side of the project near 151st Avenue during Final Plat Engineering. They asked if 151st Avenue was being extended north into the County jurisdiction and the Applicant explained to them at a previous rezone case of Saddlehorn Ranch, the residents at that time did not want a road connection to 151st Avenue. At the end of the meeting the 2 attendees were satisfied with the overall project and the Applicant provided them with his phone number for additional questions they may have. Another attendee was in full support of the proposed project and thought it was planned great and liked the drainage landscape setback and one-story homes adjacent to the County Homes to the north. Another attendee lives to the northeast of the project in the County and did not support the density increase and did not want the project built unless it was 1 house per acre. The attendee had major concerns about the increased traffic in the area. Three other attendees live one (1) mile to the northwest of the project in the County and did not support the density increase and did not want the project built unless it was 1 house per acre. The attendees had major concerns about the increased traffic in the area. The overall major concern from the four (4) opposing attendees is the density of the project and increased traffic in the area. The applicant explained to them that the proposed project met General Plan transition criteria with regards to the setback buffer, one-story homes on the north side of the project adjacent to County Homes and the multi-use community trail system on the north side of the 4 project for all the community. The applicant explained to them that the Owners of the land and for all their projects in the area are spending approximately six million dollars on road improvements to Happy Valley Road and 163rd Avenue including two traffic signals and drainage structures. After our discussion, we felt the participants were able to express their concerns, questions, and opinions throughout the open house. Smaller discussion groups broke off after the conclusion of the in-person open house. City staff required a hybrid meeting with virtual attendees. There were no virtual attendees with this open house. There were no comment cards left behind at this open house. We have committed to working through many of the discussion points during the virtual open house and we will continue to follow up with the in-person and virtual attendees if requested. We have been working cooperatively with City staff on the annexation and rezone request and will continue to work towards public hearings on the proposed request. If we are contacted by any neighbors or stakeholders after we have submitted this citizen participation report to the City, we will reach out to them and provide updates to the City staff with an amended report. Tab 1 4/29 4/29/2 2 48 58 9 4/29/2 2 49 23 /2 4/29/2 3 2 /2 2 4/29/2 3 2 5 4 3 4/29/2 3 8 5 /29/2 4/29/2 3 9 06 Tab 2