View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-8-22-1 -
Northeast Corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and the Southeast Corner of I
-17 and Jenny Lin Road (Ordinance G-7140)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-8-22-1
and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), S
-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), County RU-43 (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) (Pending
Annexation), and Pending S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R-2 (Multifamily
Residence District), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District), and R-3A (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow single-family and multifamily residential. This is a
companion case and must be heard following GPA-RV-1-22-1.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 (44.29 acres), C-3 (11.96 acres), S-1 (9.06 acres), County RU-43
(8.03 acres), Pending S-1 (5.95 acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-2 (29.14 acres), R-3 (31.78 acres), R-3A (18.37 acres)
Acreage: 79.29 acres
Proposal: Single-family and multifamily residential

Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this case on May 9,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional
stipulations, by a vote of 5-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 1, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated June 1, 2023, with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and the southeast corner of I-17
and Jenny Lin Road
Council District: 1

Page 397

Parcel Address: 44301, 44333, 44421, 44825 and 45111 N. Black Canyon Highway;
and 3900 W. Circle Mountain Road

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 398
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-8-22-1) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL), C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), S-1 (RANCH
OR FARM RESIDENCE), COUNTY RU-43 (ONE ACRE PER
DWELLING UNIT) (PENDING ANNEXATION), AND PENDING S-1
(RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE) TO R-2 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT), R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT), AND R-3A (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).

____________

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 79.29-acre site located on the northeast

corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and the southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin

Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 2 East, as described more

specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from 44.29 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate

Commercial), 11.96 acres of “C-3” (General Commercial), 9.06 acres of “S-1” (Ranch or

Farm Residence), 8.03 acres of County “RU-43” (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) (pending

annexation), and 5.95 acres of Pending “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) to 29.14

Page 399
acres of “R-2” (Multifamily Residence District), 31.78 acres of “R-3” (Multifamily

Residence District), and 18.37 acres of “R-3A” (Multifamily Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

Overall Site

1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) option.

2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a
minimum building setback of 55 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy
drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings with a staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to achieve
a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

5. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

Page 400
6. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide
minimum 75% shade, calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown on a
shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments, that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
enhanced landscaping on both sides within minimum 250-square-foot
landscape areas and shall incorporate a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape
median, planted with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

10. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all site entries and exits to slow
down vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

11. Each phase of the development shall provide bicycle infrastructure as
described below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for units without garages at a
rate of 0.25 spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces.

b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per
multifamily residential and single-family residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces. Guest bicycle parking for single-family
residential shall be located in open space and amenity areas. Bicycle
parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks
located near the community center and/or clubhouse and open space
areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle
Master Plan.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained on site within an amenity area or near a primary site
entrance. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in
an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering

Page 401
areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be
limited to standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and
pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair
stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.

12. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian
Circulation Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of
the Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, shall be provided and updated with each phase of development to
include the following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along
the west side of the site adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and a
minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
the easement, in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development department.

b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect all
phases of the development, including the area between Project II and
Project III.

c. Four pedestrian connections shall be provided from the site leading to
the adjacent trails directly east or west of the site.

d. Pedestrian access shall be provided to future development to the east for
each phase of development.

13. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day night-
level (DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. A sealed and signed analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona
with a proficiency in residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be
included with the building plans submitted for Phoenix Building Construction
Code compliance review to the Planning and Development Department. The
engineer shall note in the analysis that the building design is capable of
achieving the required Noise Level Reduction.

14. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided along the west perimeter of the site.
The wall height shall be determined through a noise analysis prepared by a
registered professional engineer. The wall shall be constructed of minimum 8-
inch-thick concrete masonry units (CMU) or of cast-in-place concrete and
contain no openings unless they are above the minimum height required for
adequate noise mitigation or for drainage. Noise walls shall be constructed to
wrap around corner lots and areas near intersections. Wrap around walls, upon
turning a corner, shall continue for at least 120 feet (approximately two lot

Page 402
widths), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

15. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls shall vary by a minimum of four
feet every 400 lineal feet to visually reflect a meandering or staggered setback,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

16. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, shall incorporate stone veneer,
stonework, or integral color CMU block, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

17. Interior walls and privacy fencing, excluding walls located between lots, shall
use materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

18. A minimum of 15% of each phase shall be retained as open space, including
washes and hillside areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

19. Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active
recreation amenities, such as a tot lot, picnic areas, seating features, garden
amenities, or similar amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing shall be
incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open
space areas, natural and/or improved drainageways or recreational areas, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

22. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall
include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure and 5% of the required
parking spaces shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

23. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks and minimum 5-foot-wide landscape
strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk within the development
shall be constructed and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to

Page 403
achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

24. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, and minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, or
wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards shall be constructed along the
south side of Jenny Lin Road, the east side of the I-17 frontage road, and the
north side of Circle Mountain Road, planted to the following standards. The
developer shall record a landscaping maintenance agreement with the
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requiring the
landowner and/or property management to maintain the installed landscaping
within MCDOT right-of-way to the following planting standards, as approved by
MCDOT and the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

25. All right-of-way dedications and street improvements for Circle Mountain Road,
the I-17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road shall comply with Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requirements, as approved by
MCDOT. Where possible the County Rural Residential Cross Section shall be
utilized for Jenny Lin Road.

26. A minimum 65-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated, and the east half of the I-
17 frontage road shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required and
approved by MCDOT.

27. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
north side of the minor collector street along the southern boundary of Project
III. The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F
and include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a
minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Page 404
28. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of the minor collector street along the northern boundary of Project II.
The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and
include minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

29. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at all
public street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout
the entirety of the site, as approved by the Street Transportation Department
and the Planning and Development Department.

30. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department and MCDOT (where applicable). All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

31. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) for this development.

32. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective purchasers
and renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the
I-17 Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to recordation.

33. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

34. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

35. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

36. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.

Page 405
37. Prior to the construction of any residences, all existing wells within the
development shall be capped and abandoned, as required by the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR).

38. The development shall petition the Street Transportation Department to
eliminate the requirement for street light infrastructure for the development
where possible in an effort to protect dark skies.

39. Primary construction access shall be from Circle Mountain Road, or the
frontage road, and ancillary construction activity and access may occur on
Jenny Lin Road during parts of Project III, as approved by the City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department.

40. The developer shall promptly repair any roadway damage that may occur on
Jenny Lin Road during construction.

41. The developer shall include disclosure language in future leases requiring all
residents of Project III to acknowledge that a portion of Jenny Lin Road is
private property, and no trespass is permitted.

Phase 1 (R-3 Zoned Area)

42. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

43. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Spanish Colonial architectural style

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage
doors

d. Covered front porches

e. Window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels and
terracotta gable vent tubes

Page 406
44. Phase 1 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 288 dwelling
units.

Phase 2 (R-2 Zoned Area)

45. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

46. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Variety of architectural styles

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage
doors

d. Covered front porches and covered rear patios

e. Garage, window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels,
terracotta gable vent tubes, and window shutters

h. Gable end treatment with varied materials and colors

i. Breaking of massing and with varied materials and colors

47. Phase 2 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 172 lots.

Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area)

48. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process
for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval with specific
regard to the inclusion of the below elements. This is a legislative review for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements
will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 407
a. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets,
recesses, window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies.

b. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with, rather than
contrast, with the surrounding desert environment. Accent colors may be
appropriate but used judiciously and with restraint.

c. An architectural theme shall convey a sense of continuity through all
phases.

49. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter
landscape setbacks, shall be landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall
be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees and shall be dispersed throughout the parking area to achieve a
minimum 25% shade at maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 3rd day of July, 2023.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:

Page 408
_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (5 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)

Page 409
EXHIBIT A

PROJECT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION

A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING
MARKED BY A CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE FROM WHICH THE
WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING MARKED BY A GLO CAP
WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS BEARS NORTH 00 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 28
SECONDS WEST, 2638.76 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 3, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, 1,551.65
FEET, TO A NONTANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 25,028.70 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 20
MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02
DEGREES 51 MINUTES 06 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1245.70 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, 1,074.15 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER;

THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 44
SECONDS EAST, 1,240.24 FEET;

THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 18
SECONDS WEST, 1,093.85 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PORTION OF LAND CONTAINING 1,353,066 SQUARE FEET, OR 31.0621
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS,
RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE.

THIS DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE USED TO VIOLATE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE STATE, COUNTY AND/OR MUNICIPALITY,
OR ANY OTHER LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS.

PROJECT 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION

A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;

Page 410
COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING
MARKED BY A GLO CAP WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS FROM WHICH THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING MARKED BY A CITY OF
PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 12 MINUTES
28 SECONDS EAST, 2,638.76 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 3, NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST, 2,648.37
FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 3, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 51.75 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUINING ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 08
MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 1,355.04 FEET;

THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 10
SECONDS WEST, 1,074.15 FEET, TO A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO
THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25,028.70 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH
BEARS SOUTH 87 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST;

THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00
DEGREES 33 MINUTES 33 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 245.35 FEET TO
A NONTANGENT LINE;

THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, 375.39 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, 192.16 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST, 269.03 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, 155.01 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST, 65.03 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30 DEGREES
54 MINUTES 03 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 80.90 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES
31 MINUTES 12 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.88 FEET;

Page 411
THENCE NORTH 56 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 78.24 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 310.00 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEGREES
46 MINUTES 35 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 58.31 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 69 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST, 136.22 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES
13 MINUTES 17 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 0.39 FEET TO A TANGENT
LINE;

THENCE NORTH 70 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, 90.80 FEET TO A
NONTANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 638.00
FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 19 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 44
SECONDS WEST;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEGREES
29 MINUTES 41 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 116.86 FEET TO A NON-
TANGENT LINE;

THENCE NORTH 59 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST, 43.16 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 185.00 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26 DEGREES
11 MINUTES 38 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 84.58 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, 117.26 FEETTO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PORTION OF LAND CONTAINING 1,239,346 SQUARE FEET, OR 28.4515
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS,
RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-OFWAYS OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE.

THIS DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE USED TO VIOLATE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE STATE, COUNTY AND/OR MUNICIPALITY,
OR ANY OTHER LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS.

Page 412
PROJECT 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION

A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6
NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3,
BEING MARKED BY A GLO CAP WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS FROM WHICH THE
WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING MARKED BY A GLO CAP
WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 28
SECONDS EAST, 2,638.76 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 3, NORTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 2,008.27 FEET
POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUNG ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59
MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 631.32 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER
OF SAID SECTION;

THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 00
DEGREES 07 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 962.87 FEET;

THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 15
SECONDS WEST, 32.52 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 100.00 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 12.19 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 50.00 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 28.63 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 95.48 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 231.50 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34 DEGREES
35 MINUTES 46 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 139.78 FEET TO A
TANGENT LINE;

THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 269.47 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 58 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST, 45.17 FEET;

Page 413
THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, 279.62 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 8.79 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST, 754.66 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 06 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 592.89 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PORTION OF LAND CONTAINING 844,490 SQUARE FEET, OR 19.3868
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS,
RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-OFWAYS OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE.

THIS DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE USED TO VIOLATE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE STATE, COUNTY AND/OR MUNICIPALITY,
OR ANY OTHER LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS.

Page 414
Page 415
ATTACHMENT B

Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Rio Vista Village Planning May 9, 2023
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 1, 2023

Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (44.29 acres),
C-3 (General Commercial) (11.96 acres), S-1
(Ranch or Farm Residence) (9.06 acres),
County RU-43 (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit)
(Pending Annexation) (8.03 acres) and Pending
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) (5.95 acres)
Request To: R-2 (Multifamily Residence District) (29.14
acres), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(31.78 acres), and R-3A (Multifamily Residence
District) (18.37 acres)
Proposal: Single-family and multifamily residential
Location: Northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain
Road and the southeast corner of I-17 and
Jenny Lin Road
Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
Current:
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (68.93
acres)
Commercial (45.65 acres)

Proposed:
General Plan Land Use
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre (64.52
Designation
acres)
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (31.07
acres)
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (18.99 acres)
Remove Infrastructure Phasing Overlay (114.58
acres)

Page 416
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

I-17 frontage Minor Width varies +48 feet (MCDOT right-of-
road Collector way)
Jenny Lin 0-foot south half street (MCDOT right-of-
Local
Road way)
Street Map
Classification Circle 33-foot north half street (MCDOT right-of-
Mountain Local
way)
Road
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system,
development should be designed to include increased amenities for transit,
pedestrian and bicyclists such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider
sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding.

As stipulated, the proposal will provide bicycle infrastructure, including bicycle parking
and bicycle repair stations.

CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CANALS & TRAILS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Provide multi-use trail connections where appropriate.

As stipulated, the proposal will provide a multi-use trail along the western perimeter of
the site to provide connection points to adjacent trails and to provide a more
comfortable user experience for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the surrounding
area.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS; DIVERSE
NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of housing types and
densities where appropriate within each village that support a broad range of
lifestyles.

The proposal will provide a mix of housing types and densities that are approximately
located along the existing I-17 freeway and nearby the Anthem Employment Center to
the south.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; TREES AND SHADE; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal will provide shade along public and private sidewalks and trails, in
addition to the internal pedestrian pathways. This will help to provide shade for
pedestrians and bicyclists in and around the community.

Page 417
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; WATER SUPPLY; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Maximize the use of drought-tolerant vegetation in landscaped
areas throughout the city and promote the use of Xeriscape techniques.

The proposal will provide drought-tolerant species for landscaping. The landscape
species will be selected from the Arizona Department of Water Resources Low-Water-
Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List in order to ensure the species is a drought-tolerant
low-water-use species.

Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines: See Background Item No. 5.

National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's Monarch Pledge: See Background Item No.
6.

Housing Phoenix Plan: See Background Item No. 7.

Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 8.

Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 9.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 10.

Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 11.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan: See Background Item No. 12.

Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
C-2, C-3, S-1, County RU-43
On Site Vacant (Pending Annexation) and
Pending S-1
North (across Jenny
Single-family residential County RU-43
Lin Road)
South (across Circle Recreational vehicle
C-2, C-3, and County RU-43
Mountain Road) dealership and vacant lots
Vacant (State Trust Land and
East N/A
Daisy Mountain Preserve)
Single-family residential ad
West (across I-17) R1-6 and County RU-43
vacant land

Page 418
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Phase 1 (Project I): R-3 – Multifamily Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)

Standards Requirements Proposed

Gross Acreage - 31.78 acres
Maximum Number 484 units, up to 553 with bonus 288 units
of Units
Maximum Density 15.23 dwelling units per acre, up to 17.40 9.06 dwelling
(dwelling units/acre) with bonus units per acre
(Met)
Maximum Lot 45% 34% (Met)
Coverage
Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 feet for first 150 feet; 1-foot Not specified
Height increase in height for each additional 5 feet in
setback up to 48 feet high, 4-story maximum
Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks
Adjacent to 20 feet 20 feet – 100
public street feet (Met)
Adjacent to 15 feet 15 feet (Met)
property line
Minimum Perimeter Landscape Setbacks
Adjacent to 20 feet Not specified
public street
Adjacent to 5 feet Not specified
property line
Minimum Open Minimum 5% of gross area 42% (Met)
Space

Minimum Parking 455 spaces 541 spaces

1.3 spaces per efficiency unit; 1.5 spaces per
1- or 2-bedroom unit; 2 spaces per 3- or
more bedroom unit; 1.0 spaces per unit of
less than 600 square feet

If required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking required at 0.3
spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5
spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit and
1.0 space per each 3- or more bedroom unit,
except where minimum 18-foot driveways are

Page 419
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

provided for individual units then 0.25 space
per each unit required for unreserved parking

1- or 2-bedroom units: 243 units x 1.5 spaces
3-bedroom units: 45 units x 2 spaces
*Variance or site plan modification required

Phase 2 (Project II): R-2 – Multifamily Residence District
(Single-Family, Detached Development, Planned Residential Development
Option)

Standards Requirements Proposed

Gross Acreage - 29.14 acres
Maximum Number of 189 units, up to 349 with bonus 172 units
Units
Maximum Density 6.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 12 with 5.9 dwelling units
(dwelling units/acre) bonus per acre (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage Primary structure, not including Not specified
attached shade structures: 40% Total:
50%
Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 feet (except that 3 Not specified
Height stories not exceeding 30 feet are
permitted when approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating enhanced
architecture)
Minimum Lot Width 45 feet minimum (unless approved by 45 feet (Met)
either the design advisor or the Single-
Family Architectural Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced architecture
that minimizes the impact of the garage
(see Section 507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))
Minimum Lot Depth None, except 110 feet adjacent to 75 feet (Met)
freeway or arterial
Subject to Single-Family - Yes
Design Review
Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks
Adjacent to street 15 feet (in addition to landscape I-17 frontage
(front, rear or setback) road: 100 feet
side) (Met)

Page 420
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Adjacent to Rear: 15 feet (1-story), 20 feet (2-story) Not specified
property line Side: 10 feet (1-story), 15 feet (2-story) Not specified
Minimum Interior Building Setbacks
Front 10 feet Not specified
Rear None (established by Building Code) Not specified
Street Side 10 feet Not specified
Sides None (established by Building Code) Not specified
Common Landscaped 15 feet average, 10 feet minimum (does 20 feet (Met)
Setback Adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto perimeter
Perimeter Streets streets)
Minimum Common Area Minimum 5% of gross area Not specified

Minimum Parking 2 spaces per dwelling unit Not specified
*Variance or site plan modification required

Phase 3 (Project III): R-3A – Multifamily Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)

Standards Requirements Proposed

Gross Acreage - 18.37 acres
Maximum Number of 424 units, up to 485 with bonus Not specified
Units
Maximum Density 23.1 dwelling units per acre, up to Not specified
(dwelling units/acre) 26.4 with bonus
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% Not specified
Maximum Building 3 stories or 40 feet for first 150 feet; 1- Not specified
Height foot increase in height for each
additional 5 feet in setback up to 48
feet high, 4-story maximum
Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks
Adjacent to public 20 feet Not specified
street
Adjacent to 15 feet Not specified
property line
Minimum Perimeter Landscape Setbacks
Adjacent to public 20 feet Not specified
street
Adjacent to 5 feet Not specified
property line

Page 421
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Minimum Open Space Minimum 5% of gross area Not specified

Minimum Parking 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit; 1.5 Not specified
spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; 2
spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit;
1.0 spaces per unit of less than 600
square feet

If required parking is reserved for
residents, additional unreserved
parking required at 0.3 spaces for
each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces
per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit and 1.0
space per each 3- or more bedroom
unit, except where minimum 18-foot
driveways are provided for individual
units then 0.25 space per each unit
required for unreserved parking
*Variance or site plan modification required

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 79.29 acres located at the northeast corner of I-17 and
Circle Mountain Road and the southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road from
44.29 acres of C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), 11.96 acres of C-3 (General
Commercial), 9.06 acres of S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), 8.03 acres of
County RU-43 (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) pending annexation, and 5.95 acres
of Pending S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to 29.14 acres of R-2 (Multifamily
Residence District), 31.78 acres of R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and 18.37
acres of R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) to allow single-family and
multifamily residential.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Commercial
and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is inconsistent with
the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations. A concurrent minor
General Plan Amendment case, GPA-RV-1-22-1, is proposed to change the
General Plan Land Use Map designations for a larger 114.58-acre area to
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre, Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre, Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and to remove the Infrastructure
Phasing Overlay. The proposed R-2, R-3, and R-3A zoning districts are
consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations.

Page 422
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

To the north and east is designated as Undesignated Area located within the
County jurisdiction. To the west, across the I-17 freeway, is designated as
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. To the south is designated as
Undesignated Area located within the County jurisdiction and Commercial in the

In between the separate north and south rezoning areas, the land use
designation is Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.

General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. The subject site is currently vacant and is zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial),
C-3 (General Commercial), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), County RU-43 (One
Dwelling Unit Per Acre) pending annexation, and Pending S-1 (Pending Ranch or
Farm Residence).

In between Project II and Project III (see the figure on Page 9) is vacant
undeveloped land zoned C-2.

To the north (across Jenny Lin Road) is a large single-family residential lot zoned
County RU-43. To the south is a recreational vehicle dealer and vacant lots
zoned County RU-43, C-2, and C-3. To the east is State Trust Land and the
Daisy Mountain Preserve with no zoning designation. To the west (across the I-

Page 423
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

17) is a single-family residential subdivision zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District) and vacant land zoned County RU-43.

PHASE 3
(PROJECT III)

PHASE 2
(PROJECT II)

PHASE 1
(PROJECT I)

Zoning Sketch Map
Source: Planning and Development Department

PROPOSAL
4. Overall Site
The proposed development will consist of three phases referred to as Project I,
Project II and Project III consisting of multifamily residential and single-family
residential developments. Due to the location adjacent to the freeway, staff is
recommending a series of stipulations to promote high-quality design and
mitigation from the traffic noise, including requiring a minimum building setback
ranging from 55 to 100 feet and a minimum landscape setback of 30 feet along
the west property line (Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3), that noise levels not exceed 45-
decibles (Stipulation No. 13), noise mitigation walls adjacent to the west property
line adjacent to the I-17 freeway (Stipulation No. 14), that the mix of walls
provided on the site shall vary by a minimum of four feet every 400 lineal feet
(Stipulation No. 15), that the perimeter walls be constructed with material such as
CMU block or a similar material (Stipulation No. 16), and that the developer

Page 424
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

record documents to disclose to prospective purchasers and renters of property
within the development the existence of noise from the I-17 freeway (Stipulation
No. 32). Additionally, due to higher vehicular speeds that may occur along the I-
17 frontage road, staff recommends that the developer provide traffic calming
measures at all site entries and exits to slow down vehicular speeds as they
approach sidewalks and trails. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
Furthermore, to ensure pedestrian safety and visibility, staff recommends that
where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway be constructed
of alternative material or pavement treatment that visually contrasts with the
parking and drive aisle surfaces. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7. To
further pedestrian safety, and to provide scenic views, staff recommends that a
combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing be incorporated
along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open space areas,
natural and/or improved drainageways and recreational areas. This is addressed
in Stipulation No. 20.

For consistency between projects, staff recommends that each phase utilize the
Planned Residential Development (PRD) option. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 1. For enhanced entry design, staff recommends that primary entry/exit
drives into the residential developments incorporate alternative decorative paving
materials and enhanced landscaping on both ends of the driveway and within a
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median within the driveway. This is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9. Additionally, to ensure perimeter walls throughout the
development are compatible and are higher-quality in design, staff recommends
the perimeter walls incorporate stone veneer, stonework, or integral color CMU
block. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 16.

In order to blend with the natural desert, staff recommends that drainage
channels be designed to look natural in the desert setting through color, texture,
landscaping, or other means. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 21. Further,
staff recommends that interior walls and private fencing include colors that blend
in with the natural desert environment, as listed in Stipulation No. 17.

To enhance compatibility with the surrounding area, which is primarily open
space, staff recommends a minimum of 15 percent of the gross area to be
retained as open space, including washes and hillside areas, which is triple the
minimum required open space. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 18.

Phasing Plan
The phasing plan, attached as an exhibit, proposes residential development
consisting of detached single-family and multifamily housing units to be
developed in three phases.

Page 425
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Phase 1 (Project I) (31.78 acres) is requested to be zoned R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) and is proposed to be a multifamily build-to-rent community.

Phase 2 (Project 2) (29.14 acres) is requested to be zoned R-2 (Multifamily
Residence District) and is proposed to be a single-family detached subdivision.

Phase 3 (Project III) (18.37 acres) is requested to be zoned R-3A (Multifamily
Residence District) and does not have a current proposed development.

Phase 1 (Project I) Site Plan
The site plan for Project I, attached as an exhibit, proposes a multifamily build-to-
rent community that looks like single-family residences but is subject to
multifamily standards.

Project I proposes 288 dwelling units. To retain compatibility with the surrounding
area and ensure the project does not become any denser and less compatible
with the surrounding area, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 39 to limit the
maximum density to 288 units. Vehicular access is proposed to be from the I-17
freeway frontage road through a common entry drive with a roundabout at the
leasing office and recreation area. A private drive is proposed to circulate
throughout the development to provide vehicular access. Parking will be located
throughout the site. Refuse bins are proposed to be dispersed evenly throughout
the development. There is a recreation area that is centrally located within the
development. Two pocket parks are located towards the south and west portion
of the site. Additionally, a wash crosses Phase 1 on the southeast corner and is
proposed to be preserved. The proposed site plan meets maximum density,
minimum perimeter building setbacks, minimum landscape setbacks and
maximum lot coverage requirements. As a result, staff recommends general
conformance to the site plan date stamped May 4, 2023. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 37.

Phase 2 (Project II) Site Plan
Project II proposes a detached single-family residential subdivision with 172 lots.
To retain compatibility with the surrounding area and ensure the project does not
become any denser and less compatible with the surrounding area, staff is
recommending Stipulation No. 42 to limit the maximum density to 172 lots. The
proposed development would have access from the I-17 freeway frontage road.
The subdivision will have one access point with a roundabout from a proposed
collector street accessed from the I-17 frontage road. The subdivision is
proposed to be gated on both sides of the roundabout. The conceptual site plan,
attached as an exhibit, does not depict any vehicular access from Project I. The
site plan depicts an amenity area located at the northern portion of the site. The
proposed site plan meets maximum density, minimum street perimeter building
setbacks, minimum landscape setbacks, minimum lot width and minimum lot

Page 426
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

depth requirements. As a result, staff recommends general conformance to the
site plan date stamped April 13, 2023. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 40.

Phase 3 (Project III) Site Plan and Elevations
There is no specific development plan for Project III. However, any future
development is subject to the approved stipulations for this rezoning case and
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends that the site plan
and elevations for future development of Project III shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process.
Specific development requirements that will be reviewed by the Planning Hearing
Officer include architectural embellishments on all building facades, muted colors
to match the surrounding desert environment, and a common architectural theme
throughout all developments. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 43.

Phase 1 (Project I) Elevations
The renderings submitted for Project I propose a Spanish Colonial architectural
style. The proposed development will have muted building facades including
white, beige, red and brown. The renderings propose one-and two-story building
units with several decorative elements, including windows and glass doors with
muntins and mullions, corbels, Spanish style terracotta clay gable vent tubes and
other architectural embellishments, window treatment, balconies with railing, front
covered porches and front courtyards, and decorative lighting fixtures. Staff
recommends general conformance to the elevations date stamped August 29,
2022, with specific regard to these decorative elements. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 38.

Phase 2 (Project II) Elevations
The elevations and renderings submitted for Project II propose a variety of
architectural styles and include plans for one- and two-story buildings with a
variety of colors, materials, breaking of massing, window and glass door muntins
and mullions, window and door treatments, architectural embellishments, gable
end treatment, front covered patios, covered porches, window shutters, and
decorative lighting fixtures. Staff recommends general conformance to the
elevations date stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to these elements.
This is addressed in Stipulation No. 41.

PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITATIVES
5. Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee developed the Rio Vista Village
Design Guidelines to influence the design of new development in the Village. In
accordance with the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines, the proposed
development, as stipulated, will include a multi-use trail, natural colors and high-
quality building materials, a preserved wash, evenly dispersed open space areas,
minimum 15 percent open space, a minimum 100-foot building setback from the

Page 427
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

I-17 for a large portion of the site, fenced front courtyards, enhanced decorative
windows, and decorative walls. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2, 12.a, 16,
17, 18, 37, 38, 40, and 41.

6. National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's Monarch Pledge
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's
Mayor's Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support
the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is
a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of
milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers,
but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch butterfly
population, Stipulation No. 5 addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or other
native nectar plant species, on the subject site.

7. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
more sustainable fashion.

8. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached
from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to
provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island
effect. Staff is recommending the following stipulations designed to provide trees
and enhance shade within and adjacent to the development:

• All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted with 50
percent 2-inch caliper and 50 percent 3-inch caliper streets (Stipulation
No. 4);
• Pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a
minimum of 75 percent shade (Stipulation No. 6);

Page 428
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

• Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded
active recreation amenities (Stipulation No. 19);
• Landscape strips between back of curb and detached sidewalks within the
development shall be a minimum of five feet wide and planted with
minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings (Stipulation No.
23);
• Landscape strips between back of curb and detached sidewalks for
perimeter streets, including along Jenny Lin Road, the I-17 frontage road,
and Circle Mountain Road, shall be a minimum five feet wide, or wider to
meet Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum
standards, planted with minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy
drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, and that the developer record a landscaping maintenance
agreement with MCDOT requiring the landowner and/or property
management to maintain the installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of-
way (Stipulation No. 24);
• Surface parking lot areas for Phase 3 shall be landscaped with minimum
2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees to achieve a
minimum of 25 percent shade (Stipulation No. 44).

9. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe pedestrian
environment, staff is recommending that enhanced pavement treatment for the
on-site pedestrian walkways that cross vehicular drive aisles. Additionally, staff
recommends the developer construct minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks
with a minimum 5-foot-wide detached landscape strips between the back of curb
and sidewalk within the development and that the sidewalks along Jenny Lin
Road, the I-17 frontage road, and Circle Mountain Road be minimum 5-foot-wide
detached sidewalks, or wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards, with
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips between the back of curb and sidewalk, or
wider to meet MCODT minimum standards. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos.
7, 23 and 24.

10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-

Page 429
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. As stipulated, the project will provide bicycle infrastructure,
including secured bicycle parking spaces, guest bicycle parking spaces, and
bicycle repair stations. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 11.

11. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The applicant’s submittal materials indicated that the
community would obtain City solid waste services, including recycling.

12. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends a minimum of two percent
of the required parking spaces, including garages, include EV Installed
infrastructure and five percent EV Capable infrastructure. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 22.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. As of writing this report, staff has received two letters of opposition and three
letters with concerns regarding this proposal. The stated concerns are trail
connectivity, inclusion of bike lanes, street width and number of lanes, traffic
congestion, safety, density, lack of pedestrian connectivity across the I-17, loss
of scenic views and darks skies, and high-density housing adjacent to large-lot
single family homes. Staff also received a petition of opposition with 214
signatures.

Page 430
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. Fire Prevention
The Fire Department commented that the development will need to comply with
the Phoenix Fire Code, including requirements for water supply for fire flow and
for fire hydrants.

15. Water Services Department
The City of Phoenix Water Services Department has noted the property will
require water and sewer main extensions to serve the proposed development
and that the development will be required to develop on-site water and
wastewater master plans and conform with the City’s water and wastewater
master plan within the Anthem area. The Water Services Department also
commented that the water and sewer mains shall be located in an easement and
shall follow the easement requirements per WSD’s Design Standards Manual,
that the developer will be required to install the infrastructure or pay their
proportional share for water production and for a water reclamation plant,
including land and easements associated with the infrastructure, that the
developer will be required to evaluate and upgrade the lift station and force
mains as needed, and that water capacity is a dynamic condition that can change
over time due to a variety of factors. As a result of the Water Services
Department comments, staff recommends master plans be submitted for the
development, per the requirements of the Planned Community District (PCD),
Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 12.

16. Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department recommended that a
multi-use path be provided around the perimeter of the site, that public access is
maintained to Daisy Mountain from all directions, that trail connections be
provided to adjacent trails and that pedestrian connectivity be provided to
connect communities. As a result, staff recommends that a multi-use trail be
provided along the west side of the property, that a north-south pedestrian
connection be provided to connect all phases of the development from Circle
Mountain Road to Jenny Lin Road, and that a minimum of four pedestrian
connections from the site leading to the adjacent trails directly east or west of the
site be provided. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12.a through 12.c.

17. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department requested the following:
• That street improvements along Circle Mountain Road, the I-17 frontage
road, and Jenny Lin Road comply with the Maricopa County Department
of Transportation standards;
• That the developer dedicate a minimum of 65 feet of right-of-way along

Page 431
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

the east half of the I-17 frontage;
• That the developer dedicate a minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way on the
southern boundary of Project III for the north half of a minor collector
street;
• That the developer dedicate a minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way on the
northern boundary of Project II for the full width of a minor collector street
• That the minor collector street improvements be consistent with Minor
Collector Cross Section F and include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached
sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip for the north
half of the minor collector street on the southern boundary of Project III
and minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape strips for the minor collector street on the northern
boundary of Project II;
• That enhanced pedestrian connections be designed and constructed at all
public street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails
throughout the entirety of the site;
• That all streets be constructed with all required elements and meet ADA
standards;
• That a Red Border Letter be submitted to the Arizona Department of
Transportation.

This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 25 through 31.

18. Maricopa County Department of Transportation
The Maricopa County Department of Transportation commented on minimum
right-of-way dedication requirements for Black Canyon Highway, Circle Mountain
Road and Jenny Lin Road, responsibilities of the developer, and that the
developer notify the Arizona Department of Transportation of the proposed
development through the Red Border Letter process due to the proximity to the I-
17 freeway.

OTHER
19. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted.
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based
upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this
determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event
archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground

Page 432
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 33
through 35.

20. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 36.

21. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm water
flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for verification
of required infrastructure in regard to lot space and density.

22. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.

Findings

1. The proposal will develop a vacant property and as stipulated, will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.

2. The stipulated landscape setbacks and planting standards are above the required
minimum standards and will make the proposal a compatible addition to the
neighboring area.

3. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans and initiatives,
such as the Housing Phoenix Plan, the Tree and Shade Master Plan, the
Complete Streets Guidelines, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and the
Transportation Electrification Action Plan.

Stipulations

Overall Site

1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) option.

2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a

Page 433
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

minimum building setback of 55 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy
drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings with a staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

5. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

6. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide
minimum 75% shade, calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown on a
shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments, that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
enhanced landscaping on both sides within minimum 250-square-foot landscape
areas and shall incorporate a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

10. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all site entries and exits to slow
down vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

Page 434
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

11. Each phase of the development shall provide bicycle infrastructure as described
below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for units without garages at a
rate of 0.25 spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces.

b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces
per multifamily residential and single-family residential dwelling unit, up
to a maximum of 50 spaces. Guest bicycle parking for single-family
residential shall be located in open space and amenity areas. Bicycle
parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic
racks located near the community center and/or clubhouse and open
space areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle
Master Plan.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained on site within an amenity area or near a primary site
entrance. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in
an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering
areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be
limited to standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and
pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle
repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.

12. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian
Circulation Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, shall be provided and updated with each phase of development to
include the following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated
along the west side of the site adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and a
minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
the easement, in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development department.

b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect all
phases of the development, including the area between Project II and
Project III.

Page 435
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

c. Four pedestrian connections shall be provided from the site leading to
the adjacent trails directly east or west of the site.

13. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day night-
level (DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. A sealed and signed analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona
with a proficiency in residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be
included with the building plans submitted for Phoenix Building Construction
Code compliance review to the Planning and Development Department. The
engineer shall note in the analysis that the building design is capable of
achieving the required Noise Level Reduction.

14. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided along the west perimeter of the site. The
wall height shall be determined through a noise analysis prepared by a
registered professional engineer. The wall shall be constructed of minimum 8-
inch-thick concrete masonry units (CMU) or of cast-in-place concrete and contain
no openings unless they are above the minimum height required for adequate
noise mitigation or for drainage. Noise walls shall be constructed to wrap around
corner lots and areas near intersections. Wrap around walls, upon turning a
corner, shall continue for at least 120 feet (approximately two lot widths), as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

15. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls shall vary by a minimum of four feet
every 400 lineal feet to visually reflect a meandering or staggered setback, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

16. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, shall incorporate stone veneer,
stonework, or integral color CMU block, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

17. Interior walls and privacy fencing, excluding walls located between lots, shall use
materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

18. A minimum of 15% of each phase shall be retained as open space, including
washes and hillside areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

19. Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active
recreation amenities, such as a tot lot, picnic areas, seating features, garden
amenities, or similar amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

Page 436
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

20. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing shall be
incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open
space areas, natural and/or improved drainageways or recreational areas, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting through
color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

22. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall
include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure and 5% of the required
parking spaces shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

23. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks and minimum 5-foot-wide landscape
strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk within the development
shall be constructed and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

24. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, and minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, or
wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards shall be constructed along the south
side of Jenny Lin Road, the east side of the I-17 frontage road, and the north
side of Circle Mountain Road, planted to the following standards. The developer
shall record a landscaping maintenance agreement with the Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requiring the landowner and/or property
management to maintain the installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of-way to
the following planting standards, as approved by MCDOT and the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

Page 437
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

25. All right-of-way dedications and street improvements for Circle Mountain Road,
the I-17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road shall comply with Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requirements, as approved by MCDOT.

26. A minimum 65-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated, and the east half of the I-
17 frontage road shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required and
approved by MCDOT.

27. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
north side of the minor collector street along the southern boundary of Project III.
The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and
include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-
foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

28. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of the minor collector street along the northern boundary of Project II.
The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and
include minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot-
wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

29. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at all public
street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout the
entirety of the site, as approved by the Street Transportation Department and the
Planning and Development Department.

30. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department and MCDOT (where applicable). All improvements
shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

31. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) for this development.

Page 438
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

32. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective purchasers
and renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the I-
17 Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to recordation.

33. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

34. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I
data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

35. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

36. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Phase 1 (R-3 Zoned Area)

37. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

38. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Spanish Colonial architectural style

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage
doors

d. Covered front porches

Page 439
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

e. Window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels and
terracotta gable vent tubes

39. Phase 1 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 288 dwelling units.

Phase 2 (R-2 Zoned Area)

40. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

41. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Variety of architectural styles

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage
doors

d. Covered front porches and covered rear patios

e. Garage, window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels,
terracotta gable vent tubes, and window shutters

h. Gable end treatment with varied materials and colors

i. Breaking of massing and with varied materials and colors

42. Phase 2 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 172 lots.

Page 440
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area)

43. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for
stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval with specific regard
to the inclusion of the below elements. This is a legislative review for conceptual
purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements will be
determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development
Department.

a. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets,
recesses, window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies.

b. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with, rather than
contrast, with the surrounding desert environment. Accent colors may
be appropriate but used judiciously and with restraint.

c. An architectural theme shall convey a sense of continuity through all
phases.

44. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter
landscape setbacks, shall be landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall be
landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees and shall be dispersed throughout the parking area to achieve a minimum
25% shade at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

Writer
Adrian Zambrano and Nayeli Sanchez Luna
May 9, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning Sketch Map
Aerial Sketch Map
Phasing Plan date stamped April 13, 2023
Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan date stamped May 4, 2023
Phase 1 Elevations date stamped August 29, 2022 (12 pages)
Phase 1 Renderings date stamped August 29, 2022 (7 pages)
Phase 2 Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 13, 2023
Phase 2 Elevations date stamped August 29, 2022 (10 pages)

Page 441
Staff Report: Z-8-22-1
May 9, 2023

Phase 2 Renderings date stamped August 29, 2022 (6 pages)
Community Correspondence (13 pages)

Page 442
S-1
Z-67-03

!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
MARICOPA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! COUNTY
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

§
¦
¨ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

MARICOPA !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

COUNTY !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

C-2 *
ANX 401 MARICOPA
Z-103-07
COUNTY

44TH AVE N
S-1
DR OY ANX 485
OL
44T C-2 *
S-1 H RR
ANX 401
ANX 149 NA
ANX 180
R1-6 * Z-103-07
Z-90-18 RA R1-6 * Pending S-1
NO Z-32-13
S-1 *
Z-90-18 SO
C-3 *

43RD DR
ANX 401
Z-103-07

41ST DR
N
C-2 *
44TH ANX 401
L Z-103-07

43RD AVE
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD
C-2*
RE-35 R1-6 ANX 402
C-2 * RI
MARICOPA VE
PCD *
Z-104-07
PCD * S-1 C-3 *
ANX 401
Z-103-07 COUNTY RA
Z-60-04 Z-66-96 ANX 332
MARICOPA ANX 401 DR
Z-33-05 COUNTY Z-103-07

I Miles
Z-8-22

0.2 0.1 0 0.2
RIO VISTA VILLAGE RD
R
RI
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 VE
WY I-17
W
NE PK
EA DESERT HILLS DR
K
ID P

PYRAM

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris PLC / Adam Baugh C-2 ( 44.29 a.c.)
FROM:
C-3 ( 11.96 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/15/2022 S-1 ( 9.06 a.c.)
Z-8-22 REVISION DATES:
RU-43 (County) ( 8.03 a.c.)
1/18/2023 4/20/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
Pending S-1 ( 5.95 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
R-2 ( 29.14 a.c.)
79.29 Acres QS 72-19 V-6 TO:
R-3 ( 31.78 a.c.)
R-3A ( 18.37 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2, C-3, S-1, RU-43 (County),
642, 173, 9, 8, 5 770, 208, N/A, N/A, N/A
Pending S-1
R-2, R-3, R-3A 291, 461, 404 349, 553, 485

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 443
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-8-22.mxd
S-1
Z-67-03

!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
MARICOPA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! COUNTY
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

§
¦
¨ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

MARICOPA !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

COUNTY !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

C-2 *
ANX 401 MARICOPA
Z-103-07
COUNTY

44TH AVE N
S-1
DR OY ANX 485
OL
44T C-2 *
S-1 H RR
ANX 401
ANX 149 NA
ANX 180
R1-6 * Z-103-07
Z-90-18 RA R1-6 * Pending S-1
NO Z-32-13
S-1 *
Z-90-18 SO
C-3 *

43RD DR
ANX 401
Z-103-07

41ST DR
N
C-2 *
44TH ANX 401
L Z-103-07

43RD AVE
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD
C-2*
RE-35 R1-6 ANX 402
C-2 * RI
MARICOPA VE
PCD *
Z-104-07
PCD * S-1 C-3 *
ANX 401
Z-103-07 COUNTY RA
MARICOPA DR
Maricop a Coun ty A sse sso r's O ffice

Z-60-04 Z-66-96 ANX 332 ANX 401
Z-33-05 COUNTY Z-103-07

I Miles
Z-8-22

0.2 0.1 0 0.2
RIO VISTA VILLAGE R
RD

RI
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 VE
WY I-17
W
NE PK
EA DESERT HILLS DR
K
ID P

PYRAM

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris PLC / Adam Baugh C-2 ( 44.29 a.c.)
FROM:
C-3 ( 11.96 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/15/2022 S-1 ( 9.06 a.c.)
Z-8-22 REVISION DATES:
RU-43 (County) ( 8.03 a.c.)
1/18/2023 4/20/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
Pending S-1 ( 5.95 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
R-2 ( 29.14 a.c.)
79.29 Acres QS 72-19 V-6 TO:
R-3 ( 31.78 a.c.)
R-3A ( 18.37 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2, C-3, S-1, RU-43 (County),
642, 173, 9, 8, 5 770, 208, N/A, N/A, N/A
Pending S-1
R-2, R-3, R-3A 291, 461, 404 349, 553, 485

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 444
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-8-22.mxd
PROJECT 11I
19.3 ACRES

"NOT A PART
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT"

14.8'

112 3

109 5
108 114
107 6
75 7
74 106

76 105 10

PROJECT 1I
70 71 72 123 122 121 120 119 118 117

77 104 11
78 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
103 12

28.5 ACRES
53 52
79 102 13

172 Total Units
54 51
80 101 14
66 137 136 135 134 133 132 131
55 50

6.03 DU/AC
81 100 15
56 49
82 99 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 16
57 48
83 98 17
58 47
84 97 18
62 151 150 149 148 147 146 145
59 46
85 96 19
60 45
86 95 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 20

87 94 21

44 43 42 41 40 88 93 22
165 164 163 162 161 160 159
89 92 23

90 91 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 24

39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25

PLAN
3G PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
PLAN 2 3G 3G
2G 2G

PLAN 1 PLAN 1

PLAN 1C
PLAN

PLAN 1C
PLAN 3G PLAN PLAN 1C
PLAN
3G 2C
PLAN 1 PLAN 1
2C

PLAN
2C PLAN PLAN
PLAN
PLAN PLAN 3G 2G
2G
2C 2C

PLAN 2

PLAN 1 PLAN
2G

PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1

PLAN 1C
PLAN
2G PLAN 1 PLAN 1

PLAN 2

PLAN
2G
PLAN
2C PLAN
PLAN PLAN 2G
PLAN

PLAN 1C
2C 2C
2G

PLAN 1C
PLAN 1C PLAN 1C PLAN
PLAN 3G
PLAN 1C 3G

PLAN 2
PLAN 1C
PLAN 2
PLAN 1 PLAN PLAN 2
3G PLAN PLAN
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 2G 3G

PROJECT I
PLAN PLAN 1
PLAN 2 2G PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN
3G PLAN 2

PLAN PLAN
PLAN PLAN

I-17 FRONTAGE ROAD
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN PLAN 2C 2C
2G 2G

PLAN 1C
2G

31.06 ACRES
2C PLAN
PLAN 1 PLAN 1
3G

PLAN
3G

288 Total Units
PROPOSED ZONING
PLAN
2G

PLAN 2

9.3 DU/AC
PLAN

PLAN 1C
3G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN

PLAN 1C
3G PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN
PLAN 3G
3G

PROJECT I: R-3 PRD
PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN
PLAN 2 3G PLAN 1C PLAN 1

PLAN 2
PLAN
2G PLAN PLAN
2C 2C

PLAN PLAN

PLAN 1C
3G 2C
PLAN
2C

PROJECT II: R-2 PRD
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN PLAN
2G
PLAN 1
3G

PLAN
2G
PLAN 1C PLAN 1C

PLAN 2 PLAN 1

PROJECT III: R-3A
PLAN
PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN 2G
3G

PLAN 1 PLAN 1

PLAN 1C

PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
PLAN 2G PLAN
3G 2C 2C
2C 2G

PLAN 2
PLAN 1 PLAN 1

PLAN PLAN 1

PLAN 1C
2C PLAN
3G

PLAN 2 PLAN 1

PLAN PLAN
2G PLAN 2
3G

PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 2
PLAN
2G

CIRCLE MOUNTAIN RD

200 0 200 400
scale 1" = 200' feet

SHEET
JOB NO Anthem 114
1 20-1099
OF 1 Project Boundary Exhibit
Page 445
LEGEND
FLOW ARROW PRE-APPLICATION SITE PLAN
FIRE HYDRANT
ESMT EASEMENT
DKT DOCKET FOR
BK BOOK
PG PAGE
MCR MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS
P/S PRIVATE STREET ANTHEM 114 PROJECT 1
R/W RIGHT OF WAY A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3,
T:480.503.2250 | F:480.503.2258

BSL SETBACK LINE TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN,
MUT MULTI-USE TRAIL APN 202-22-003L NEW RIVER, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
MUTE MULTI-USE TRAIL EASEMENT CIRCLE MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC
L/S LANDSCAPE SETBACK ZONING: RU-43

15.0' B.S.L.
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
N89°45'10"W 1074.15'
JENNY LIN ROAD
PLAN
PLAN 1 3G PLAN 2 PLAN 2
PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
PLAN 2
2G 3G 2G 3G

PLAN 1 PLAN 1

PLAN
FH PLAN PLAN 1C
PLAN 1C PLAN
3G 2C PLAN 1C
PLAN 1 PLAN 1C 2C
SEC 3
PLAN 1 CITY OF PHOENIX T.6 N., R.2 E.
PLAN
PLAN PLAN PLAN
INTERSTATE 17

2C
PLAN PLAN PLAN 3G 3G 2G PLAN 1C
2G 2C
2C MAY 04 2023
FH SUBJECT
26'
BLOCK FH PRIVATE SITE
WALL PLAN 2 DRIVE PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
Planning & Development
PLAN
2G

9' x 18' PARKING STALL (TYP.) Department
26' PLAN
2G
PLAN 1 PLAN 1
35TH AVENUE (ALIGNMENT)

PLAN 1C
43RD AVENUE (ALIGNMENT)

PLAN 2 PRIVATE PLAN 2
PLAN 2
DRIVE FH
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD
PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
2C 2C 2G PLAN 1 2C 2G

PLAN
PROJECT TEAM
2C

25.0' PLAN 1C PLAN PLANNER, ENGINEER, AND
I-17 FRONTAGE ROAD

DEVELOPER:
FH PLAN 2G PLAN
PLAN 1C 3G 3G BELLA FLOR COMMUNITIES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
PLAN 2

PROP. 10.0' 22.0' FH 1635 N. GREENFIELD ROAD, STE. 115 EPS GROUP, INC.
100.0'
PLAN 2 MESA, AZ 85205 1130 N. ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, STE. 120
R/W B.S.L. PLAN PLAN 2
26'
3G PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
44421 N. Black Canyon Highway
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN PLAN TEL: (480) 553-7236 MESA, AZ 85210
2G 3G PRIVATE
7.0' DRIVE CONTACT: HUDD HASSELL TEL: (480)-503-2250
7.0' hudd@belaflor.com CONTACT: BRENNAN MAHER
POCKET
PLAN 1 PLAN PLAN 2 brennan.maher@epsgroupinc.com
2G PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
PLAN PARK
PLAN 1C
3G
New River, AZ

PLAN PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
PLAN PLAN
PLAN FH 2C 2C
PLAN 2G 2G
2G PLAN 1C PLAN
GATED ENTRY 2C 3G
A.P.N. 202-22-003M, 002A, 002B, 002C
Anthem 114 Project 1
LOCATION: NEC OF I-17 AND CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD
Preliminary Site Plan
FH ADDRESS: 44421 N BLACK CANYON HWY
49' 20' LEASING / 26'
RECREATION AREA PLAN NEW RIVER, AZ 85087
PRIVATE 3G

DRIVE
CITY OF PHOENIX VILLAGE: RIO VISTA
20' ±1.0 AC PLAN
ENTRY DRIVE 2G

PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
CURRENT LAND USE: VACANT / NATURAL DESERT
Page 446
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1
I N T E R S T A T E 17

PLAN 1 PLAN 1
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: COMMERCIAL
EXISTING ZONING: C-2 AND C-3
PLAN
3G
NEIGHBORHOOD PASEO

PLAN PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 PRD
N0°08'44"W 1240.24'
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 1C
3G
PLAN 2
9' x 18' PARKING STALL (TYP.)

PLAN
ARIZONA STATE TRUST LAND

PLAN 3G
PLAN 1C 8.0'
3G GROSS AREA: +/- 31.06 ACRES
REFUSE ENCLOSURE (TYP.)
NET AREA: +/- 29.74 ACRES
PLAN 2
PLAN PLAN 1 PLAN 1
3G
Project:
PLAN 2 NO. OF UNITS: 288
PLAN
R = 2 5 , 0 2 8 . 7 0 ' L = 12 4 4 . 57 ' D = 2 º 50 ' 57 "

PLAN PLAN
2G 2C 2C
GROSS DENSITY: 9.27 DU/AC.
20-1099 - Anthem 114
25.0' PLAN PLAN
3G
2C FH FH LOT SALES: NO
PLAN
2C
PLAN 1C
POCKET
PLAN 2 26'
OPEN SPACE: +/- 13.43 ACRES (45% OF NET)
PARK PLAN
PLAN 3G LOT COVERAGE: 34%
2G PRIVATE PLAN 15.0' B.S.L.
PLAN 1C 2G PLAN 1
DRIVE PLAN 1C

POCKET
PLAN 1
PARK FH UNIT MIX SUMMARY
PLAN 1

BLOCK PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 1 BD / 1 BA 947 SF 88 UNITS (31%)
PLAN PLAN TRASH COMPACTOR
WALL 3G 2G PLAN 1C 1 BD / 1 BA 1,231 SF 33 UNITS (11%)
FH REFUSE ENCLOSURE (TYP.) PLAN 2 2 BD / 2 BA 1,103 SF 44 UNITS (15%)
PLAN 2C 2 BD / 2 BA 1,167 SF 39 UNITS (14%)
26' FH
PLAN 2
PLAN 2G 2 BD / 2 BA 1,103 SF 38 UNITS (13%)
PRIVATE 9' x 18' PARKING STALL (TYP.)
DRIVE H PLAN 3G 3 BD / 2 BA 1,398 SF 46 UNITS (16%)
AS TOTAL 288 UNITS (100%)
PLAN
W PLAN PLAN
PLAN
POCKET G PLAN
3G PLAN 2G 2C 2C 2G
2C N
IS TI PARKING SUMMARY
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
PARK
EX REQUIRED PARKING:
PLAN 1 FH
PLAN 1 PLAN 7.8' 1 & 2 BED (1.5 PER UNIT) 243 UNITS x 1.5 = 365 SPACES
PLAN 1C
2C PLAN PLAN
3G 3G
SOUTH 1/4 COR,
SEC 3, T6N, R2E,
3 BED (2 PER UNIT) 45 UNITS x 2 = 90 SPACES
PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 3.8' TOTAL 455 SPACE (1.57 PER UNIT)
PLAN 1 BRASS CAP MONUMENT Dial 8-1-1 or 1-800-STAKE-IT (782-5348)
26' W/SECTIONAL MARKINGS In Maricopa County: (602)263-1100
PLAN PLAN
3G 2G
20.0' B.S.L.
PRIVATE PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PROPOSED PARKING:
PLAN 2 PLAN
PLAN 2 2G
DRIVE SE CORNER, SEC 3, T6N, R2E, JH
FOUND GLO MONUMENT
GARAGE (PLANS 1C. 2C, 2G & 3G) 300 SPACES
25.0' DRIVEWAY 84 SPACES PEM
W/SECTIONAL MARKINGS
OPEN 157 SPACES
40.0' TOTAL 541 SPACES (1.9 PER UNIT)
R/W Preliminary
1551.65' 1093.85' N89°42'29"E
Not For
N89°58'18"W 2645.50' MOUNTAIN RD 2638.54' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction
CIRCLE
PROP. 40.0' Or
THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTS OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Recording
R/W CONTAINING 288 LOTS WITH A GROSS DENSITY OF 9.27 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
APN 202-22-009X
APN 202-22-015A APN 202-22-015C APN 202-22-015D APN 202-22-015E APN 202-22-015F THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNED
ANGEL / MARIA
MIA HOLDINGS MIA HOLDINGS KENNETH SHEEHAN TR KENNETH SHEEHAN TR KENNETH SHEEHAN TR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION WITH WATER, SEWER, ROADWAY AND
DOMINGUEZ Job No.
ZONING: C-3 ZONING: C-2 ZONING: RU-43 ZONING: RU-43 ZONING: RU-43 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS COMMUNITY WILL CONSIST OF PRIVATE STREETS,
SW COR, SEC 3, T6N, R2E, ZONING: RU-43
FOUND BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE
COMMON AREAS AND AMENITIES TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS'
"CITY OF PHOENIX" ASSOCIATION.
PA01
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sheet No.
80 0 80 160
THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CONFORM WITH THE R-2 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
scale: 1" = 80' feet DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Page 447
Page 448
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
Page 453
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Page 459
Page 460
Page 461
Page 462
Page 463
Page 464
Page 465
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
FOR
ANTHEM 114 PROJECT 2 T:480.503.2250 | F:480.503.2258

A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3,
.8' TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN,
NEW RIVER, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
N89°51'16"E
19.42'
0'59"E
N29°56'51"E N74°4 1'
31.92' 97.4 4.8'
ANTHEM 114 1
VICINITY MAP
APN: 202-22-003G PHASE 3 ' N.T.S.
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC .65
ZONING: C-2 0"E JENNY LIN ROAD
8'2 2
4°4
N6
N88°07'50"E
3'35"E 113
N77°1 66.42' 112 3
4"E 83.47'
06'2 ' 111 SEC 3
64° 9' 50.0
' N 87.8 P/S 4 T.6 N., R.2 E.
.61
N70°05'33"E 87 '
33.0
19.51' '00"E P/S
26 110
4°
INTERSTATE 17

N4°11'12"E 5
N5 109
6.85'
ANTHEM 114 "E 108 114
PHASE 3 '00
26 ' 33.0'
4° 5 107 6
N5 73.9 ' GATED P/S
S86°46'07"E 193.96' N84°51'54"E 33.0 115
7' P/S ENTRY SUBJECT
N89°52'37"E 117.81'
48.41' 75 7
106 AMENITY AREA SITE
43RD AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) 35TH AVENUE (ALIGNMENT)

ROAD 74 116
8 CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD
S4°16'15"W 121.1

33.0' 33.0'
P/S P/S 9
PROJECT TEAM
76 105 10 DEVELOPER: PLANNER, ENGINEER, AND
70 71 72 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 BELLA FLOR COMMUNITIES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
1635 N. GREENFIELD ROAD, STE. 115 EPS GROUP, INC.
44421 N. Black Canyon Highway

77 104 11 MESA, AZ 85205 1130 N. ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, STE. 120
69 33.0' TEL: (480) 553-7236 MESA, AZ 85210
P/S CONTACT: HUDD HASSELL TEL: (480)-503-2250
124 125 126 127 128 129 130
I-17 FRONT

78 103 12 hudd@belaflor.com CONTACT: BRENNAN MAHER
AGE
New River, AZ
68 brennan.maher@epsgroupinc.com
104.0' HIGHWAY 53 52
ESMT 33.0'
DKT 3215, PG 242,
MCR
79 102 13
P/S
PROJECT INFORMATION
Anthem 114 Project 2 Conceptual Layout
54 51
' 80 A.P.N. 202-22-003L; 003D; 003J; 003K; 003F;
101 14
137 136 135 134 133 132 131 A PORTION OF 003G
100.0' HIGHWAY
ESMT 66
100.0' 55 LOCATION: NEC OF I-17 AND CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD
N0°08'44"W 1226.65'
BK 535, PG 11, MCR 50
BSL 81 ADDRESS: 44421 N BLACK CANYON HWY
ARIZONA STATE TRUST LAND

100 15
65 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL NEW RIVER, AZ 85087
33.0'
Page 466
56 49 CITY OF PHOENIX VILLAGE: RIO VISTA
82 P/S 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
S3°44'22"W 375.39

99 16
64 CURRENT LAND USE: VACANT / NATURAL DESERT
20.0' 33.0' 57 33.0'
48 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: COMMERCIAL
L/S P/S P/S 83 33.0' 17
98 P/S EXISTING ZONING: C-2, S-1 AND RU-43
63 PROPOSED ZONING: R-2 PRD
58 47
5.3'
84 97 18 9.4' Project:
R/W GROSS AREA: +/- 26.43 ACRES
A T E 17
62 151 150 149 148 147 146 145 NET AREA: +/- 24.78 ACRES
59 46
20-1099 - Anthem 114
85 33.0'
96 P/S
NO. OF LOTS:
60 45'x75' 172 LOTS
86 95 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 20
DENSITY: 6.9 DU/AC. (OF NET)
33.0'
INTERST

P/S
LOTS FOR SALE: NO
87 94 33.0' 21
P/S
44 43 42 41 40 88 93 22
165 164 163 162 161 160 159
89 92 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
33.0'
PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
P/S THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTS OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
90 91 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 24 CONTAINING 172 LOTS WITH A GROSS DENSITY OF 6.9 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS PER
11.1' ACRE. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION WITH WATER, SEWER, ROADWAY AND
33.0' 33.0' DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS COMMUNITY WILL CONSIST OF PRIVATE STREETS,
P/S P/S
N2°28'05"E 245.35'

COMMON AREAS AND AMENITIES TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION.
39 38 Dial 8-1-1 or 1-800-STAKE-IT (782-5348)
37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 In Maricopa County: (602)263-1100
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BM
N89°45'10"W 1074.15'
THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CONFORM WITH THE R-2 PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
JAJ
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
ANTHEM 114
PHASE 1 Preliminary
LEGEND
APN 202-22-003M Not For
CIRCLE MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC FLOW ARROW Construction
ZONING: C-3 FIRE HYDRANT Or
ESMT EASEMENT
Recording
DKT DOCKET
BK BOOK
PG PAGE
Job No.
MCR MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS
P/S PRIVATE STREET
R/W RIGHT OF WAY
BSL SETBACK LINE CONCEPT
MUT MULTI-USE TRAIL
MUTE MULTI-USE TRAIL EASEMENT Sheet No.
80 0 80 160 L/S LANDSCAPE SETBACK
scale: 1" = 80' feet
Page 467
Page 468
Page 469
Page 470
Page 471
Page 472
Page 473
Page 474
Page 475
Page 476
Page 477
Page 478
Page 479
Page 480
Page 481
Page 482
From: Tyler Estes
To: adam@witheymorris.com
Cc: Julianna Pierre
Subject: Z-8-22-1 GPA-RV-1-22-1 questions
Date: Sunday, March 6, 2022 11:38:01 AM

Good Morning!,

I received information about the proposed community on the I-17 frontage road and Circle
Mountain Rd.

The developer is looking to rezone for residential, which I believe is the best usage for the
land in question.

My primary suggestions for the developer and the City of Phoenix and the Rio Vista planning
committee are as follows.

1. The first deals with traffic safety. You can see in the video that at night it is very hard to
distinguish between vehicles on I-17 and the frontage road. The best solution for this would be
to make Arroyo Norte Dr, Circle Mountain Drive, and any entrance to the proposed
community be traffic Circles. This will slow down traffic and allow holigh volumes of
residential and school traffic to access the frontage road where the potential for accidents are
of much reduced energy.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/GrsEQVzuz4iEa9XQ8 [photos.app.goo.gl]

2. Widen the Frontage Road and create "Green Lanes". On the west side of I-17 the City of
Phoenix recently widened 43rd Ave as well as Circle Mountain Road to include Green Lanes.
This is following with the CoP plans to update roadways to be more bike and commuter
friendly and safe. This provides a unique opportunity for the CoP and ADOT to collaborate
together for my 3rd suggestion.

3. Span I-17 and Circle Mountain Rd with a pedestrian bridge. This will provide a
multifaceted solution to a host of issues plaguing this section of I-17 and the congestion that is
steadily building on the Anthem Way and I-17 overpass.

As the developer knows accessing the properties along the I-17 frontage road in this area is
cumbersome and will become increasingly congested and dangerous. A K-12 school is
presently being built on Arroyo Norte Drive and the Frontage Rd, as well as a 170 unit
apartment complex, and 70 additional single family units are also being built on Aroyo Norte
Dr. When the new development is also added it will create even more traffic.

I have been mulling over this issue for the last several years and I believe a pedestrian bridge
at Circle Mountain is the best solution to solve a lot of problems.

A. Reduce K-12 traffic in the morning and afternoon for both Great Hearts Academy, Caurus
Academy, and Canyon Springs for both the frontage road and 43rd Ave. Many students live
on the opposite side of the I-17 in relation to their school. A pedestrian bridge would provide a
path for walkers and bike riders to access their campus safely. Thereby alleviating the number
of vehicle crossing Anthem Way and I-17.

Page 483
B. Decrease retail traffic along the frontage Road, Navigation Way, Anthem Way, and 43rd
Ave. As the developer knows there is increased market demand for communities that have
easy access to retail and entertainment. Building the pedestrian bridge would give the east side
residents of the proposed community, as well as Anthem Residents, a safe path to access retail
and entertainment on the westside of the I-17. This includes Goodwill, The Anthems Outlets,
Walmart, and many other small businesses and restaurants.

C. Sometimes I-17 backs up and traffic overflows onto the Frontage Rd blocking any traffic
moving along the frontage road. A pedestrian bridge will allow retail access to residents in this
area during such an event. Also there has been a lot of concerns expressed by members of the
community on both sides of I-17 that there are not enough roads to evacuate residents in an
emergency. A pedestrian bridge would give an additional escape route from the east to the
west or the west to the east in the slim chance of a catastrophic wildfire.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/rsNgbE1cfHyRiJ259 [photos.app.goo.gl]

https://azdot.gov/adot-blog/new-bicyclepedestrian-bridge-open-chandler [azdot.gov]

For the pedestrian what is the process to get such an idea up for consideration?

Thank you for your time.

Page 484
Phoenix City Councilmembers
Phoenix City Hall
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Anthem 114 Development - GPA Case No: GPA-RV-1-22-1, Case No: 2-8-22-1

April 24, 2023

Dear City of Phoenix Councilmembers and Rio Vista Village Planning Committee:

I am sending this letter in regard to the housing development project along the I-17 frontage road
between Anthem and New River (identified in the November 16th formal city council meeting as #45 for
the Proposed I-17 and Jenny Lin Road Annexation Public Hearing with Case No: 2-8-22-1). Although this
project may be viewed on the outskirts, in reality it is a regional transportation and recreation
connection between the communities of New River and Anthem.

1. A perimeter pathway around the project site is necessary to ensure connectivity between
New River and Anthem, as well as to ensure public access to Daisy Mountain is protected. The
New River/Desert Hills Area Plan shows future trail connections planned from this area east into
Daisy Mountain. The Friends of Daisy Mountain Trails also have a planned trail connection into
Tonto National Forest.

All communities deserve active transportation options including rural communities. Anthem is a
high kid-density area and safe pathways for bicycle and pedestrian travel are necessary. Biking is
in the top 3 for adult outdoor recreation activities nationwide and it is the #1 outdoor activity
for kids under 15 nationwide. The pathway is needed to support active transportation and
recreation opportunities and provide a safe environment.

Approximately 64% of Maricopa County is obese or overweight according to the 2020 Maricopa
Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan. In addition, mental health effects are
becoming more prevalent among youth as discussed in the 2021 U.S. Surgeon Generals Advisory
on Youth Mental Health. The pathway would help to provide a safe place for people to exercise
as well as provide a connection to Daisy Mountain where hiking, picnicking, and escaping to the
natural environment is possible. In addition to physical benefits, there are mental health
benefits associated with spending time in nature as well.

It is essential when creating a built environment that the design includes safe places for those
interested in active transportation and recreation to participate. There have been many
fatalities due to excluding active transportation options. We believe the addition on a perimeter
path for this project would help provide for a safer regional transportation and recreation
connection.

Page 485
In addition, with increased active transportation options there would be economic benefits to
both the New River businesses to the north and Anthem businesses to the south due to the
increased and existing populations. As a portion of the site is changing from commercial to
residential, it makes sense to provide current businesses in the area with another way for
people to reach them.

A perimeter pathway is necessary to ensure active transportation options for residents of the
area and to protect a regional connection, as well as public access to Daisy Mountain. Rural
communities deserve active transportation options too.

2. Bike lanes should be added to the frontage road.

As e-bikes increase in popularity and create the opportunity for people to travel much further
we need to have the infrastructure in place to be able to best accommodate them and provide a
safe environment for all roadway users. Some bicyclists prefer to be on the road and travel at
high speeds (even without a motor) and bike lanes could support the infrastructure for them as
well as e-bike users.

3. Road lanes need to be reviewed for an emergency during a wildlife or other event.

Another concern is if a wildfire occurred to the north, people in New River would use the I-17
and frontage road along this project site to go south. Due to the increased population, as well as
to ensure egress during an emergency, the frontage road may need to be widened or lanes
added. One consideration is developing the pathway to standards that would allow emergency
vehicles to use them and bypass traffic in case of an emergency.

4. Protect dark skies.

Another concern is the impact of light pollution on the dark skies in the New River area. We
request the project as well as others in the area use certain design features to reduce light
impacts onto neighboring communities. With just one social media post, twenty-one community
members have signed up to protect dark skies in New River.

5. Protect scenic views.

The project area is in a Scenic Corridor, so views of Daisy Mountain and Gavilan Peak in
particular should be protected. The I-17 Scenic Corridor Overlay was adopted in 1999 and the
Scenic Corridor extends from Carefree Highway north to Yavapai County. The designation was
established to preserve environmentally sensitive land areas and view corridors, and encourage
innovative and sensitive planning and quality design.

Page 486
The Maricopa County New River/Desert Hills Area Plan should be referenced to ensure that any
protections this site was granted being in Maricopa County still apply (such as the scenic
corridor). Even if the Maricopa County parcel is not annexed, we ask that the City of Phoenix still
review and accommodate the intended goals of the New River/Desert Hills Area Plan as this site
is adjacent to county land.

In particular, protection of the viewshed including Daisy Mountain and Gavilan Peak is essential.
One concern with the annexation of the Maricopa County area is that the protection of these
viewsheds may not occur.

6. Protect public access to lands accessible to the public and develop a trailhead parking area to
help provide adequate and safe access to Daisy Mountain.

The additional of a perimeter path would help to provide access to Daisy Mountain as well as
thousands of acres of Arizona State Land (where a low-cost permit can be obtained) and
eventually to Tonto National Forest. The pathway would also help provide access to the
Maricopa Trail, a 315-mile loop that would provide access to the entire Phoenix metropolitan
area. This connection is especially critical for those in west New River who would be essentially
cut off without this connection.

The trailhead parking area is important as the development will being in many new residents
and expose more people to Daisy Mountain. The City of Phoenix has seen challenges with
inadequate parking and public access for the mountain preserves. The trailhead parking area
would help to ensure adequate parking is available for the community.

7. Transition of density from higher density near the Anthem area to lower density near New
River.

One concern heard from residents in New River is the stark contrast that could exist if
development is high density as it approaches New River. We ask you to consider a transition of
density as residents in the area have expressed this concern.

8. Maintain the existing commercial portion of the property instead of have only residential
homes.

With more people moving into the area, it will create more use on existing shopping and retail
areas, so the commercial portion of the project should remain as such to provide adequate
commercial services to people in the area.

9. Do not allow a portion of the site to be for the construction of single-family homes in rent for
perpetuity.

Page 487
Homes should be available for sale to the general public, not available for rent. It makes sense in
apartment complexes where there may be more communal aspects of the development such as
sharing building and maintenance expenses associated with the building structure. The single
family homes should be available for purchase or we are going to continue to see a lack of
affordable housing in the area.

One of the main concerns is that if a pathway is not developed with this project along the frontage road,
it will never happen and that regional transportation and recreation connection would be lost. Although
New River may seem outside of town, there have been people living here since the late 1800’s and the
area is continuing to grow. There has been a 16 percent increase in population from 2010 to 2020 and
the area is expected to grow even more with the addition of the new TSMC factory in the North Valley.

I ask that you listen to these concerns and incorporate these suggestions for the project as it moves
forward in the development process.

As part of the annexation of Maricopa County we ask that all Maricopa County Plans are reviewed and
incorporated in the project design, that design features reduce light and visual impacts, and that the
project supports active transportation by providing regional connectivity with the addition of a
perimeter path.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. I am also be available to meeting
in-person to discuss these concerns.

Thank you,

Eileen Baden, AICP

eileenbaden@gmail.com

908-797-9727

Past President, Arizona Association of Environmental Professionals

Advisory Board Member, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at ASU

Board Member, Friends of Daisy Mountain Trails

Page 488
From: Adrian G Zambrano
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: 2023-04-25 - Opposition - Cheryl Wright
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:35:51 AM

From: cheryl wright
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 9:00 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Zoning

April 24, 2023
Phoenix Planning and Development
Attn: Zoning Counter
200 West Washington Street, 2nd floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear City of Phoenix Zoning,
I am a New River / Desert Hills community resident and writing to strongly
oppose the re-zoning initiative: GPA Case No: GPA-RV-122-1, Case Z-8-22-1 on
Circle Mountain Rd, and SE corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Rd.
This area has in place existing zoning for single-family residential acreage parcels.
Multi-family dwellings would destroy the fabric of the environment and community.
You do not have my support for such new development.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Wright

Page 489
5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org

By using Change.org, you agree to our Terms of Service. New terms include a binding
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Arbitration Agreement on an individual basis with an option to opt-out.

Petition details Comments Updates

Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone
land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17
214 have signed. Let’s get to 500!

At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!

Laurie Ricci started this petition to Rio Vista Village Planner Julianna Pierre

Please sign this petition asking the city of Phoenix to deny this zoning change. Protect our rural lifestyle.

Property
The subject site is approximately 114.5 acres of vacant land located east of I-17 between Circle Mountain
Road and Jenny Lin Road (the “Property”). Sign this petition

Page 490
https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 1/22
5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org

The property consists of 14 parcels, Maricopa County APNs 202-22-001B, -001C, -001D, -003D, -003F, -003G,
-003H, -003J, -003K, -003L, -003M, - 002B, -002C, and -002. The Property is currently zoned a blend of S-1, C-
At per
2 and C-3 500zoning
signatures, this petition
case Z-103-07. is more
There are likely to
also portions be featured
which in recommendations!
are still within Maricopa County and
zoned RU-43.

The Property’s General Plan land use designation is both Commercial and Residential 3.5 to 5.

To the north of the Property is Jenny Line Road, and then wildcat county properties zoned RU-43; to the east
is vacant State Land; to the west is the I-17 freeway and then homes zoned R1-6; and to the south is Circle
Mountain Road, then an outdoor storage facility (zoned C-3 and C-2 in the City of Phoenix, and County lands
zoned RU-43 ).
Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Requests
Z-8-22-1

The applicant seeks to rezone the Property from S-1 (9 acres), C-2 and C-3 (90.8 acres), and RU-43 County
(14.7 acres) to R-2 (66.51 acres), R-3 (32.07 acres) and R-3A (20.5 acres) for the development of a new,
master planned residential community that includes a mix of single-family homes for sale and rental
communities.

GPA-RV-1-22-1

A General Plan Amendment is filed as a companion case with this request. The General Plan Amendment
proposes a change from Commercial and Residential (3.5 to 5 du/ac) to Residential (10 to 15 du/ac),
Residential (15 + du/acre), and Residential (5 to 10 du/acre).
Applicant's Representative
If you have any questions about the request, you may also reach Adam Baugh at Withey Morris, PLC at
adam@witheymorris.com or 602-230-0600.

You may also submit a comment or questions at the Contact Us page.
The Rio Vista Village Planner assigned to this case is Julianna Pierre, who may be reached at 602-534-5829
or julianna.pierre@phoenix.gov. Ms. Pierre will be able to answer your questions regarding the city review
and hearing process and, once it is completed, the staff position on the request.

You may also write the city at Phoenix Planning & Development Department, 200 West Washington Street,
2nd Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. Please be sure to reference the rezoning case numbers so your
comments may be included in the case files.
Virtual Neighborhood Meeting
We are holding a virtual neighborhood meeting to discuss the rezoning and general plan amendment
proposal on March 17, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.

We will make a live presentation via web conference during which we will describe the application and
requests. After the presentation, participants will be able to submit questions the development team will
answer via live webcam.

To participate in the meeting, please email Hannah Bleam at hannah@witheymorris.com and request a link
to the meeting. The only way to access the meeting will be via the link from Ms. Bleam.

Page 491
https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 2/22
5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org

Report a policy violation
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!

Start a petition of your own
This petition starter stood up and took action. Will you do the same?

Updates

Meeting link for today!

‼️New Master Planned Community‼️Community meeting details for later today! 5:30pm.
Please find the zoom information for today’s virtual neighborhood meeting beginning at
5:30pm regarding the Circle Mountain/I-17 rezoning and general plan amendment:
Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82392882168?…
Laurie Ricci
1 year ago

More updates

Reasons for signing

Richard Zimmerman · 1 year ago

I live in the area and the city and county should stick with the general area plan, not
choose to pander to a developers greed.
Anthem is 5 homes per acre on the high side, new River is 1 home per acre. Hoe
could it be harmonious to allow a developer to 15 + dwelling units per … Read more

2 · Report

Van Hostetler · 1 year ago

Simple.
This does not improve our great, balanced community.
It has exactly the opposite effect.

Page 492
https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 3/22
5/3/23, 5:27 PM Petition · Petition to deny Z-8-22-1 & GPA-RV-1 the request to rezone land at Jenny Lin Rd. E of I-17 · Change.org

It is not "master-planned" Anthem is
1 · Report
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!

View all reasons for signing

Petitions promoted by other Change.org users

Page 493
https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-deny-z-8-22-1-gpa-rv-1-the-request-to-rezone-land-at-jenny-lin-rd-e-of-i-17?cs_tk=&utm_campaign=df1d58352c… 4/22
From: Eileen Baden
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: New River Daisy Mountain Area Plan
Date: Saturday, May 6, 2023 9:47:19 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png

Hi Adrian,

Have you had a chance to skim the New River Daisy Mountain Area Plan?

https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56744/Daisy-Mountain---New-River-Area-
Plan-compressed [maricopa.gov]

This is from page 22:

Also, the land use map below (page 11) here shows a future trail along New River Road, and I
would love to see that connection made for the Rio Vista Planning Committee so the pathway
can continue west on the northside, offset from New River Road (similar to the Sonoran
Desert Parkway). Another example I've sent you is the River Mountains Loop Trail - Lake
Mead National Recreation Area (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) [nps.gov]. The DG or
paved pathway makes it more accessible to those of all ages and abilities (and the view north
iis still pristine desert, making this the perfect place for this path). I recently attended a
meeting with Supervisor Gates and he seemed to agree that the pathway was necessary for a
regional connection between Anthem and New River as it's a long way around Daisy
Mountain.

Page 494
Thank you,
--
Eileen Baden, AICP

908-797-9727
eileenbaden@gmail.com

Page 495
From: HB
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Cc: Joshua Bednarek
Subject: Re: Proposed "Master Planned Community"- Anthem/New River
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:28:43 PM

Hi Adrian and Joshua,
I'm incredibly frustrated that you're still moving forward with the Proposed Master Planned
Community off the Frontage Road.
No matter how many letters or meetings myself and my neighbors send/have you all seem to
not listen.

I have three questions for tonight's meeting:
1 - Is there a zoom link?
2 - What are the total number of homes AND apartments (individual apts) proposed (including
phase III?
3 - I heard a possible rumor of the Frontage Road becoming a one way???
Please confirm.
If this is even a consideration - of all the terrible build ideas you're discussing in our area - this
has to be the worst idea! Please tell me this is untrue.

Here are my concerns with the Proposed Master Planned Community. I will continue to voice
my concerns!

You tell me where, in Arizona, that there is a Frontage Road (with no other street access -
back streets, side streets, etc), that has a high traffic school, multiple home sites, already
flowing traffic, AND a "Master Planned Community"???
You can't! Because it's impractical and unsafe!
All the neighborhoods that live off the Frontage Road as well as all the school children/parents
- have ONE STREET to enter and exit.
Phoenix Frontage Roads at least have other streets that they can detour and drive through if the
Frontage Road is full. WE DON'T HAVE THAT!!
I know you all don't care because you either don't know the area, don't live in the area, or
won't be impacted. But this WILL CAUSE SAFETY HAZARDS!!
I take pictures EVERYTIME the Frontage Road is backed up. An average housrhold has 2
cars. Your projections of Homes and. Apartments will lead to an additional. Cars on
the Frontage Road. This is absurd and again UNSAFE! You will be causing traffic congestion.
You tried this before. You NEED to listen to the neighbors! Not just let it go in one ear and
out the other.
I don't understand why you're insistant on unnecessarily cramming too many homes in one
area. There is NO reason you can't build 1/2 acre to 1 acre lots there.
I'm not trying to be unreasonable and say don't build. But DO NOT put a massive amount of
homes off a single Frontage Road. We've had accidents and emergencies in the past which
have caused the Frontage Road to close for hours (leaving all residents unable to go to their
homes).
Once these are built, you can't just tear them down if you find that you screwed up. If you
build these and the Frontage Road is bumper to bumper (unsafe traffic congestion), then
what???? You all just turn your head and say oh - at least we made money - sucks to be them.
Then we're stuck in it. It will never go back, it will never get better. Traffic is already
increasing. We're land locked - meaning - We don't have options for the possibility of future

Page 496
expansion of the Frontage Road. So because of that reason - that's why I'm so passionate about
this! This decision can destroy the area and again (I'm going to keep bringing this up) cause
unsafe conditions for all the school children and everyone who lives off the Frontage Road.
I've tried to go to every meeting to fight this and I will continue as well.
Please make the right decision and do NOT build this proposed "Master Planned Community"
off the Frontage Road.

Thank you,
Harmony Brown
623-693-3513
Very concerned resident

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]

From: H B

Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:41:02 PM
To: joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov
Subject: School and New Builds - Anthem/New River

Hi Joshua,

I'm so incredibly frustrated with the City of Phoenix planning and development and
anyone else involved in approving the school and housing developments in Anthem/New
River.

1. You didn't notify the residents that a potential school was going to be built or even
allow us to provide our feedback on that. We would have clearly explained that that was
a terrible idea!
The backup on the frontage road has been over an hour. The news has even reported it.

2. As you can see from the attached pictures the traffic has been horrendous! There was
a complete backup on our Frontage Road. Why were you all not out there to assess it?
Where's the traffic study?? Why did you not anticipate the long lines of traffic and create
a longer extra turn lane for them off the Frontage Road? You can easily dig in to the land
on the East Side to create an extra turning lane. Someone dropped the ball in planning.

3. When the bungalows were being proposed - multiple, multiple residents join the call
to express concerns of traffic, traffic study, practicality, safety issues, the fact that the
frontage road is are only way in-and-out , and so much more! The City of Phoenix
literally blew everyone off and accepted the build. So, how is it that the residents could

Page 497
anticipate this back up (and the backup these bungalows will cause), yet the building and
planning department couldn't anticipate that??! That's because no one in the
department even researched the area to understand the massive backup you are all
causing!

4. The proposed apartments off of the exact same Frontage Road. The same residents
got on the phone calls for the proposed apartments, expressing the same concerns as
number 3. Again, no lack of knowledge of our area from the City of Phoenix, no concern
for our safety or well being, or the traffic congestion and ridiculousness it was going to
cause. As well as NO proper traffic study (after the school opened). They simply
approved it despite the residents' concerns and legitimate issues.

5. And now on top of all the rest, the City of Phoenix also approved a master plan
community off the exact same Frontage Road less than a mile away. As if the other
builds and the existing traffic isn't enough, they want to add MORE to this small Frontage
Road. Again, lacking knowledge from the City of Phoenix or any concern or regards to
safety for the current residents.

6. The upcoming improvements to I-17 will be underway soon. In doing so, this will
cause major backup on the frontage road when the freeway is minimized to one lane.
Even with its current 2 lanes every weekend, the Frontage Road is heavily backed up due
to some sort of accident on the freeway or just simply backed up from all the traffic
going North. Once again, City of Phoenix did not take any of that into consideration in
allowing 5, yes 5! new builds to go into one small confined area with one way in and out!

7. This is not your typical Phoenix area build.. In Phoenix the frontage roads are an extra
way for the residents to get in-and-out. Typically, the homes have other routes to take to
get in or out - side streets. This is not the case in this area!! There is one road for All of
these people to get in-and-out.

8. Proper traffic studies SHOULD have been done before any approvals!! Including the
school. Why would anyone think a school off a limited access Frontage Road would be a
good idea?! In one of the meetings, the apartments were basing their traffic study off of
a 2011 traffic study. That is so incredibly outdated it is not even valid with the growth in
that area! The nearby homes weren't even built in 2011!

9 - A possible help to this traffic congestion (that you are all causing) would be to
consider an offramp between Circle Mountain Rd and Jenny Lin (in the middle of Anthem
Way and New River Road). It would make sense to have it be an on and off ramp both

Page 498
north and southbound (which would also benefit the other school (Caurus) on the west
side of the I-17. I propose the on/off ramp be at the north end of the neighborhood that
is on the west side of the I-17. DO NOT build the on/off ramp at the Frontage Road and
Circle Mountain Rd!!!! We CANNOT handle it and it would be worse!!!!

Also DO NOT make the Frontage Road a one way!!! That will also make things even
worse!!!!

10 - Don't say that these homes are needed because the new plant off the 303, because
there is PLENTY, PLENTY of land between the 303 and Anthem! You do NOT need to
build 4 new builds in under 1 mile radius off a Frontage Road. It's NOT all about money.
You need to think about people and safety as well. It's just NOT feasible to have this
much traffic with no other routes.

11. All the neighbors that live off the Frontage Road are INCREDIBLY frustrated that they
have to wait an hour to get home. If there is an Emergency, we're screwed. We all tried
to explain that all these builds would be a traffic nightmare when we were on the calls
trying to oppose the builds. Yet you all ignored us!

You all need to MAKE BETTER DECISIONS.

For being planning and development, you did NOT plan well for this. And if you continue
to allow these other 3 builds to go in, you will get even more complaints and potentially
cause a safety hazard for all us residents and all the students.

Please STOP/Deny the bungalow build, the apartments, and the proposed master
planned community. Please do your job and DO A PROPER TRAFFIC STUDY. Please KNOW
THE AREA when you approve new builds. Do your research and listen to the residents.
It's NOT all about money. Your lack of planning and efficiency has led to an extreme
traffic backup and WILL be SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE if the other 3 new builds are
approved. This area SIMPLY CANNOT handle this much traffic!!

Please help correct this terrible situation.

Thank you,

Harmony Brown

Page 499
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

Page 500
ATTACHMENT C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

Date of VPC Meeting May 9, 2023
Request From C-2 (44.29 acres), C-3 (11.96 acres), S-1 (9.06 acres),
County RU-43 Pending Annexation (8.03 acres), and
Pending S-1 (5.95 acres)
Request To R-2 (29.14 acres), R-3 (31.78 acres), and R-3A (18.37
acres)
Proposal Single-family and multifamily residential
Location Northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and
the southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional
stipulations
VPC Vote 5-1

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Cases GPA-RV-1-22-1 and Z-8-22-1 are companion cases and were heard together.

Eight members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:

Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of the Minor General Plan Amendment
request including the location of the request and surrounding General Plan Land Use
Map designations. Mr. Zambrano provided background on the Infrastructure Limit Line
and Infrastructure Phasing Overlay from the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan, noting
that the Rio Vista Village was annexed into the City of Phoenix in 2002, after the
policies from the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan were adopted in 1999, and that
there is a gap in planning efforts. Mr. Zambrano concluded that due to this gap in
planning efforts, there is no policy indicating that the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay is to
be expanded into any new annexed property. Mr. Zambrano shared the staff findings
and stated that staff recommends approval as amended to remove the request for
modifications to the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay. Mr. Zambrano then provided an
overview of the companion rezoning request including the location of the request,
surrounding zoning and land uses, and the General Plan Land Use Map designations.
Mr. Zambrano displayed the site plan and elevations for the proposed project and
shared that the proposal has received two letters of opposition, three letters with
concerns, and a petition of opposition with 214 signatures to date and summarized the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 501
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

concerns. Mr. Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends
approval subject to stipulations.

Applicant Presentation:

Adam Baugh, representative with Withey Morris Baugh, PLC, introduced himself and
provided an overview of the request. Mr. Baugh shared the background of the
developer, Bela Flor Communities. Mr. Baugh stated that when the property was first
annexed into the City of Phoenix in 2007, the original plan was to build more
commercial opportunities. Mr. Baugh shared that there was a development agreement
formed to allow commercial development with septic systems, which would normally not
be allowed today, and as City management changed, there was no longer a willingness
to allow commercial development on septic systems. Mr. Baugh stated that
infrastructure has been the property’s biggest obstacle. Mr. Baugh shared that the
current zoning would allow 1,579 homes, a retail shopping center, or a combination of
the two. Mr. Baugh stated that the property owners had a hope that a future off-ramp
would be built somewhere between Anthem Way to New River Road, which never
occurred. Mr. Baugh stated that at one point there was a plan that the nearest utility
provider, EPCOR, would serve the property and be reimbursed by the City of Phoenix,
which has since been cancelled. Mr. Baugh stated that residential can be located on the
property but comes with an expensive cost of $13 million for utility line extensions,
noting that it is very expensive because of needing to go under the freeway three times
for a looped water system, as required by the City. Mr. Baugh added that the Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) development has added hope to the
property that did not exist before, noting that it adds a major employer in the area that
would support residential development. Mr. Baugh shared that the rezoning request
allows the property to be master planned rather than coming in piece by piece under the
existing zoning entitlements. Mr. Baugh displayed the previously proposed site plan and
shared changes made since it was last presented, noting that there is not a
development plan for Phase 3 yet due to topographical limitations, and that they are
stipulated to come back to the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee for the future site
plan and elevations of Phase 3. Mr. Baugh added that the Rio Vista Village Design
Guidelines were also implemented into the design. Mr. Baugh stated that the traffic
generated from the proposed residential development would be three times fewer daily
trips than the daily trips that would be generated with the current zoning entitlements,
noting that traffic from the proposed development would be going the opposite direction
along the I-17 frontage road than queuing from the school to the north. Mr. Baugh noted
that the I-17 frontage road is being widened from two lanes to three lanes, which will
help traffic congestion coming from the I-17 onto the frontage road. Mr. Baugh shared
their neighborhood agreement and proposed additional stipulations.

Questions from the Committee:

Mr. Sommacampagna asked why Phase 3 is recommended to go through the Planning
Hearing Officer (PHO) public hearing process instead of through the rezoning process.
Mr. Baugh responded that the PHO process is the process that it would be heard by
the Village Planning Committee.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 502
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

Mr. Scharboneau asked why the request to be removed from the Infrastructure
Phasing Overlay is recommended to be removed. Mr. Zambrano responded that after
further review, staff determined removal of the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay was not
required since the subject site is not located within the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay.

Mr. Scharboneau asked why the requested General Plan Land Use Map designations
are higher density when the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations
contemplated Commercial and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, which seems
to be more compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Baugh responded that the
General Plan is a policy document and zoning is regulatory. Mr. Baugh explained that
the existing zoning is commercial, which allows multifamily residential development by-
right. Mr. Baugh stated that the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations do
not reflect what the current zoning is. Mr. Baugh stated that their request is mirroring
uses and intensity that is already allowed with the existing zoning, which allows a
density up to 15 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Scharboneau asked if the applicant
agreed that the intent was for the commercial zoning to match with the General Plan
Land Use Map designation for the intent of commercial uses and where designated as
residential on the General Plan Land Use Map designation, that residential uses would
be located in those areas with a density range of 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Mr.
Baugh responded that he does not agree, adding that he has seen a lot of
inconsistencies throughout the City of Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map and has
been asked before to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the existing
zoning.

Mr. Virgil asked about where traffic would go, adding that the proposal is for a lot of
density that would create a lot of traffic. Mr. Baugh responded that traffic from
commercial development on the property would either have to go north or south along
the I-17 frontage road, similar to the proposed residential development. Mr. Baugh
added that the density would be significantly less than what the property is currently
entitled to, and that denial of their request would not change the fact that more than
1,500 units could be built using the existing zoning entitlements. Mr. Baugh stated that
with the number of recommended stipulations, it would be a very regulated project that
would result in a better product than it would under the existing entitlements. Mr. Virgil
asked if the property was purchased already. Mr. Baugh responded affirmatively.

Jeff Riederer asked about notification to nearby residents and citizen participation. Mr.
Baugh responded that they followed City of Phoenix notification and sign posting
requirements, and that they were working with a neighbor to the north that has helped
communicate everything to other neighbors. Mr. Riederer asked about the outcome of
citizen participation. Mr. Baugh responded that the concerns were mostly addressed
through the additional stipulations proposed in the neighborhood agreement. Mr. Baugh
reiterated that the proposal is about 400 units less than what is allowed to be built under
the existing zoning.

Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he appreciates that the applicant took the time to
look through and implement the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 503
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

Sommacampagna stated that in the residential standards, it recommends different
materials and finishes, avoiding a box look, and having desert tone colors. Mr.
Sommacampagna stated that he does not believe white Santa Barbara style
architecture goes well with the desert tone theme. Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he
does like the building elevations for Phase 2. Mr. Baugh responded that it would not be
a problem for them to adjust the colors or materials.

Mr. Scharboneau asked about the Red Border Letter process. Dawn Cartier, Principal
Traffic Engineer with CivTech Inc., responded that the Red Border Letter is a standard
process that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) put in place years ago.
Ms. Cartier stated that anytime a project is within a half mile of an ADOT facility, a Red
Border Letter has to be submitted that tells ADOT what the project is about, and ADOT
reviews it and comments on what they want to see. Ms. Cartier clarified that they have
already sent ADOT the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Mr. Scharboneau asked what
ADOT wants to see. Ms. Cartier responded that the TIA is the most ADOT would ever
want to see, and sometimes they just want to see the traffic at an interchange so ADOT
can make adjustments or work with the City so that stipulations can be added related to
necessary improvements.

Chair Lawrence asked if there were any traffic studies at the intersection of the I-17
and Anthem Way or at the intersection of the I-17 and New River Road. Ms. Cartier
responded that they did evaluate both intersections in the traffic study and have been
working with the City to address comments on the traffic study.

Mr. Virgil asked about the size of the build-to-rent units and how much the monthly rent
would be. Hudd Hassell, representative with Bela Flor Communities, responded that
they would be around 900 to 1700 square feet in size. Mr. Hassell stated that the
monthly rent would be at the market rate and would depend on the market at the time.

Mr. Virgil asked about the water line location. Mr. Baugh responded that it is located
on the west side of the I-17 freeway, three miles to the south through the other
neighborhoods. Mr. Baugh stated that they would have to take out their water lines,
expand them, put in new water lines, and then bring them up to the north on the west
side of the freeway, and then cross under the freeway to reach the subject property.

Mr. Virgil stated that the water line that they would be adjusting is pretty new. Mr.
Baugh stated that it is undersized because a loop system with a certain pressure
capacity for fire safety is required. Mr. Virgil stated that something similar had to occur
for a project on Pioneer Road and asked if they could connect to the water line there.
Mr. Hassell stated that their looping system would start at Circle Mountain Road and
would go to the north so they could have that looping system.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked if anyone could tap into the extended water and
wastewater infrastructure. Mr. Hassell responded that the City requires that the
infrastructure be provided all along the east side of the I-17. Mr. Baugh stated that it
would be a good opportunity for the residents currently in the County jurisdiction to be
annexed into the City of Phoenix jurisdiction and receive City water and sewer services

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 504
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

and that they would have that opportunity in the future. Mr. Hassell added that one of
the proposed additional stipulations is to cap their wells, so they do not use any water in
the area and do not draw down the water table.

Mr. Holton recommended the residential development be a senior living community.

Public Comments and Applicant Response to Public Comments:

Josh Weidman asked if Phase 3 would be higher density. Mr. Baugh responded
affirmatively.

Harmony Brown introduced herself as a neighbor opposed to the project. Ms. Brown
asked where the Traffic Impact Analysis is located for public viewing and if it was done
after the school was built. Ms. Brown stated she has many pictures to show the traffic
congestion. Ms. Brown stated that they only have one way to access their homes and
have no back road access. Ms. Brown stated that the proposal would cause safety
issues and mass traffic congestion. Ms. Brown stated that traffic on the I-17 frontage
road is backed up very often. Ms. Brown stated that the existing zoning from 2007 is not
updated and does not reflect current traffic flow. Ms. Brown was concerned about the
density. Ms. Brown stated there is no room for expansion of the I-17 frontage road. Ms.
Brown stated that there are many acres of land to build on near the TSMC project, and
suggested the developer build the proposed development closer to TSMC. Ms. Brown
stated that a new on- and off-ramp to the freeway between Anthem Way and New River
Road would solve the traffic congestion issue.

Tammy Hughes introduced herself as a neighbor from Arroyo Norte in opposition. Ms.
Hughes echoed Ms. Brown. Ms. Hughes asked what the master plan is for the traffic.
Ms. Hughes stated that there was a transformer that caught on fire two years ago that
enflamed the whole desert by Ms. Brown’s house and a horse property. Ms. Hughes
stated that there is no fire hydrant around the recreational vehicle dealership and that
there are no fire walls around the dealership to keep fire from going into the desert. Ms.
Hughes asked what the master plan for fire is.

John Dixon introduced himself as a neighbor of 22 years to the north on an abandoned
powerline road near the surface mine, in opposition. Mr. Dixon echoed Ms. Brown. Mr.
Dixon stated that there were times when he could not get home for over an hour
because of the traffic congestion on the freeway and on the frontage road. Mr. Dixon
asked what was going to be done with the frontage road north of the subject site. Mr.
Dixon stated that the City, County and State do not want anything to do with the
frontage road to the north. Mr. Dixon stated that the road never gets patrolled or
monitored. Mr. Dixon stated that there are many cars that speed down the road,
bicyclists using the frontage road from Anthem Way to New River Road that hold up
traffic, and cars that cross the double yellow line in a no passing zone with oncoming
traffic. Mr. Dixon stated that the deputy police officer of the district had told him that they
do not have the resources to monitor the road. Mr. Dixon stated that only portions of the
frontage road are within City of Phoenix jurisdiction. Mr. Dixon stated that nothing will be
done about the frontage road until there is a fatality.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 505
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

Mr. Scharboneau asked if the City of Phoenix has the jurisdiction to do anything with
the frontage road. Mr. Baugh responded that the frontage roads are governed by the
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). Mr. Baugh stated that based
on their traffic study, they will have an obligation to widen the frontage road. Mr. Baugh
stated that the traffic congestion is occurring because property adjacent to the frontage
road has not developed so the infrastructure has not been put in yet. Mr. Baugh stated
that the frontage road will be widened as part of the project.

Mr. Virgil asked what the size of the water line is. Mr. Hassell responded that the
anticipated size is a 12-inch line, which could be as high as a 16-inch line from the tanks
to get the right pressure to serve.

Eileen Baden introduced herself as a neighbor from New River with concerns. Ms.
Baden stated that she has a master’s degree in urban and environmental planning. Ms.
Baden requested the project be delayed to the next meeting so more information can be
shared. Ms. Baden stated that is has been hard for her to get information on the project.
Ms. Baden stated that the frontage road is a regional transportation connection between
New River and Anthem. Ms. Baden stated that the frontage road was too narrow and
too dangerous for bicyclists. Ms. Baden shared that she had requested perimeter paths
to be included in the project for enhanced connectivity and safe pathways. Ms. Baden
believed that rural communities deserve active transportation options as well. Ms.
Baden stated that biking is the first top activity for kids nationwide and the third top
activity for adults after walking and hiking. Ms. Baden stated that good infrastructure for
biking needs to be provided since it is one of the top outdoor activities in the nation. Ms.
Baden stated that 34% of Maricopa County is obese or overweight according to the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Active Transportation Plan, emphasizing
the need to create safe outdoor activity opportunities in communities. Ms. Baden stated
that she would like to use Jenny Lin Road to access hiking trails to Daisy Mountain and
requested it not be gated. Ms. Baden was concerned with the noise walls because of
the area being located in a scenic corridor. Ms. Baden emphasized important pathway
connections due to potential development to the east. Ms. Baden echoed concerns with
the I-17 frontage road. Ms. Baden was concerned with wildfires from the north coming
south and fire evacuation plans. Ms. Baden emphasized that this is a regional
connection and requested more public outreach be done by the applicant and to include
the New River community. Ms. Baden commented that dark skies need to be protected,
noting that she heard that the Desert Hills community lost their dark skies when Anthem
was built. Ms. Baden stated that the area is in a scenic corridor according to the
Maricopa County Daisy Mountain/New River Area Plan, emphasizing protection of
scenic views. Ms. Baden stated that a trailhead parking area is needed for Daisy
Mountain. Ms. Baden was concerned with the transition of density and suggested
density be lower to the north and higher to the south. Ms. Baden suggested more
community outreach be done.

Brandon Hill introduced himself as a neighbor in opposition. Mr. Hill stated that the
proposal would bring new traffic to the area and traffic from commercial development
would mostly be from people already living in the area. Mr. Hill stated that frontage road

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 506
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

is already overpopulated, and that New River Road is faster to get to Carefree Highway
than the I-17. Mr. Hill commented that there are many other residential developments in
the area that are already being built and stated that those developments are not being
accounted for. Mr. Hill stated that the I-17 and the Loop 101 freeways are a huge traffic
jam all the time. Mr. Hill stated each proposed dwelling until will have at least two cars
because they are necessary to get to places, emphasizing the added traffic.

Angela Faber asked which fire department would serve the proposed development. Mr.
Hassell responded that it would be served by the City of Phoenix since the property
was annexed into the City. Ms. Faber asked where the nearest City of Phoenix fire
station is located. Mr. Baugh responded that there is an agreement between all fire
departments that whoever is closer will respond to the fire or medical emergency, noting
that it works that way across all jurisdictions. Mr. Baugh stated that they will have to pay
impact fees for water, sewer, as well as for public safety, for every one of their dwelling
units, clarifying that those impact fees go towards the expansion and build out of new
police and fire stations. Ms. Faber asked where the closest fire station is. Mr. Baugh
responded that it would be built out per the impact fees. Ms. Faber asked where and
when it would be built out. Mr. Hassell responded it would be built out whenever the
new fire station would be built out since the other side of Anthem has been built on the
other side of the freeway. Ms. Faber stated that the proposed development will be
utilizing the Daisy Mountain Fire Department. Ms. Faber asked if impact fees would be
paid to the Daisy Mountain Fire Department. Mr. Baugh responded that they pay
impact fees to the City of Phoenix, not Daisy Mountain Fire Department, and the City of
Phoenix determines how and when they want to spend the impact fees, where the
facilities should be located, and how the facilities would benefit their residents and the
surrounding area that could be outside of the City of Phoenix jurisdiction. Mr. Baugh
clarified that the agreement between the fire departments is beyond the scope of the
Village Planning Committee. Ms. Faber responded that a new fire station still has not
been built after approval of many different projects. Ms. Faber stated that the fire
department does not currently have funds to build a new fire station. Mr. Baugh
responded that they would have a requirement to install fire infrastructure all throughout
the area, such as fire hydrants and testing pressure. Mr. Baugh stated that fire
departments will be able to tap into those fire hydrants on their property boundary to
fight a nearby fire.

An unknown audience member stated concerns with fire evacuation. Mr. Baugh
responded that the existing road is not what it will look like when the project is built.

Ms. Cartier stated that ADOT has an evacuation plan and that they must have one for
the area. Ms. Cartier stated that when the road is widened, it will have a bike lane and
an extra 12 feet of pavement heading to the north or to the south. Ms. Cartier stated that
ADOT, under their emergency management plan, can bring in police officers and can
take all the vehicles out of a single direction.

Mr. Baugh stated that in addition to the widening of the frontage road and bike lane,
there will be a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail along the west side of the property within a

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 507
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement. Mr. Baugh stated that the project is providing the
very infrastructure that is lacking.

Cyndi Tendick echoed Ms. Faber.

Chair Lawrence asked how many units are permitted with the existing zoning. Mr.
Baugh responded 1,579 units. Chair Lawrence asked how many units are being
proposed. Mr. Baugh responded around 1,000 units.

Discussion:

Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he thinks this is one of the best options they have
given the by-right zoning. Mr. Sommacampagna stated that seeing a project with over
44 stipulations and a neighborhood agreement that is signed is a good sign and that he
does not often seen developers going above and beyond.

Mr. Scharboneau stated that the Committee makes recommendations to the Planning
Commission and that staff has recommended approval. Mr. Scharboneau suggested
that everyone that showed up to the meeting should show up to the Planning
Commission meeting. Mr. Scharboneau stated that concerns about widening the
frontage road should be aimed at MCDOT.

Mr. Virgil stated that developers are usually the ones that put in all the infrastructure for
new development.

Mr. Riederer stated that feels for the residents and understands their concerns with
traffic. Mr. Riederer stated that the concerns need to be taken to the next level to the
other public hearings.

MOTION – GPA-RV-1-22-1:

Mr. Scharboneau motioned to recommend denial of GPA-RV-1-22-1. Mr. Virgil
seconded the motion.

VOTE – GPA-RV-1-22-1:

2-4; motion to recommend denial of GPA-RV-1-22-1 fails with Committee members
Scharboneau and Virgil in favor and Committee members Holton, Riederer,
Sommacampagna and Lawrence opposed.

MOTION – GPA-RV-1-22-1:

Mr. Holton motioned to recommend approval of GPA-RV-1-22-1 per the staff
recommendation. Mr. Sommacampagna second the motion.

VOTE – GPA-RV-1-22-1:

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 508
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

4-2; motion to recommend approval of GPA-RV-1-22-1 per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Holton, Riederer, Sommacampagna and Lawrence in
favor and Committee members Scharboneau and Virgil opposed.

MOTION – Z-8-22-1:

Mr. Holton motioned to recommend denial of Z-8-22-1. No one seconded the motion,
so the motion failed.

MOTION – Z-8-22-1:

Mr. Sommacampagna motioned to recommend approval of Z-8-22-1 per the staff
recommendation, with additional stipulations as proposed by the applicant. Mr.
Riederer seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-8-22-1:

5-1; motion to recommend approval of Z-8-22-1 per the staff recommendation, with
additional stipulations, passes with Committee members Riederer, Scharboneau,
Sommacampagna, Virgil and Lawrence in favor and Committee member Holton
opposed.

VPC RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Overall Site

1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) option.

2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a
minimum building setback of 55 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy
drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings with a staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 509
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

5. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

6. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide
minimum 75% shade, calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown on a
shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments, that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall
incorporate decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

9. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall
incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides within minimum 250-square-
foot landscape areas and shall incorporate a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape
median, planted with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

10. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all site entries and exits to slow
down vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

11. Each phase of the development shall provide bicycle infrastructure as
described below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for units without garages at a
rate of 0.25 spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces.

b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces
per multifamily residential and single-family residential dwelling unit, up
to a maximum of 50 spaces. Guest bicycle parking for single-family
residential shall be located in open space and amenity areas. Bicycle
parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks
located near the community center and/or clubhouse and open space
areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle
Master Plan.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 510
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained on site within an amenity area or near a primary site
entrance. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in
an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering
areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be
limited to standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and
pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle
repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.

12. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian
Circulation Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of
the Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, shall be provided and updated with each phase of development to
include the following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated
along the west side of the site adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and a
minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
the easement, in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development department.

b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect all
phases of the development, including the area between Project II and
Project III.

c. Four pedestrian connections shall be provided from the site leading to
the adjacent trails directly east or west of the site.

13. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day night-
level (DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. A sealed and signed analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona
with a proficiency in residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be
included with the building plans submitted for Phoenix Building Construction
Code compliance review to the Planning and Development Department. The
engineer shall note in the analysis that the building design is capable of
achieving the required Noise Level Reduction.

14. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided along the west perimeter of the site.
The wall height shall be determined through a noise analysis prepared by a
registered professional engineer. The wall shall be constructed of minimum 8-
inch-thick concrete masonry units (CMU) or of cast-in-place concrete and
contain no openings unless they are above the minimum height required for
adequate noise mitigation or for drainage. Noise walls shall be constructed to
wrap around corner lots and areas near intersections. Wrap around walls, upon

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 511
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

turning a corner, shall continue for at least 120 feet (approximately two lot
widths), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

15. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls shall vary by a minimum of four
feet every 400 lineal feet to visually reflect a meandering or staggered setback,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

16. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, shall incorporate stone veneer,
stonework, or integral color CMU block, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

17. Interior walls and privacy fencing, excluding walls located between lots, shall
use materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

18. A minimum of 15% of each phase shall be retained as open space, including
washes and hillside areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

19. Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active
recreation amenities, such as a tot lot, picnic areas, seating features, garden
amenities, or similar amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing shall be
incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open
space areas, natural and/or improved drainageways or recreational areas, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

22. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall
include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure and 5% of the required
parking spaces shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

23. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks and minimum 5-foot-wide landscape
strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk within the development
shall be constructed and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 512
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

24. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, and minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, or
wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards shall be constructed along the
south side of Jenny Lin Road, the east side of the I-17 frontage road, and the
north side of Circle Mountain Road, planted to the following standards. The
developer shall record a landscaping maintenance agreement with the
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requiring the
landowner and/or property management to maintain the installed landscaping
within MCDOT right-of-way to the following planting standards, as approved by
MCDOT and the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

25. All right-of-way dedications and street improvements for Circle Mountain Road,
the I-17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road shall comply with Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requirements, as approved by
MCDOT.

26. A minimum 65-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated, and the east half of the I-
17 frontage road shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required and
approved by MCDOT.

27. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
north side of the minor collector street along the southern boundary of Project
III. The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F
and include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a
minimum 8-foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 513
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

28. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of the minor collector street along the northern boundary of Project II.
The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F
and include minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum
5-foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

29. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at all
public street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout
the entirety of the site, as approved by the Street Transportation Department
and the Planning and Development Department.

30. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department and MCDOT (where applicable).
All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

31. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) for this development.

32. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective purchasers
and renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the
I-17 Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to recordation.

33. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

34. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

35. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

36. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 514
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

37. PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY RESIDENCES, ALL EXISTING
WELLS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CAPPED AND
ABANDONED, AS REQUIRED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES (ADWR).

38. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL IMPLEMENT AND ABIDE BY ALL CITY OF
PHOENIX DARK SKY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

39. EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, THERE SHALL BE NO
PUBLIC PARKING, CONSTRUCTION PARKING, OR PUBLIC INGRESS
AND EGRESS TO JENNY LIN ROAD, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED
BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

40. PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS SHALL BE FROM CIRCLE
MOUNTAIN ROAD, OR THE FRONTAGE ROAD, AND ANCILLARY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND ACCESS MAY OCCUR ON JENNY LIN
ROAD DURING PARTS OF PROJECT III, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF
PHOENIX PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

41. THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPROVE THE SOUTH HALF OF JENNY LIN
ROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RURAL
RESIDENTIAL CROSS SECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

42. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROMPTLY REPAIR ANY ROADWAY DAMAGE
THAT MAY OCCUR ON JENNY LIN ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION.

43. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INCLUDE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE IN
FUTURE LEASES REQUIRING ALL RESIDENTS OF PROJECT III TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A PORTION OF JENNY LIN ROAD IS PRIVATE
PROPERTY, AND NO TRESPASS IS PERMITTED.

44. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL EXTEND THE CITY OF PHOENIX WATER
LINE ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE PROJECT III
DEVELOPMENT.

Phase 1 (R-3 Zoned Area)

37. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
45. stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

38. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
46. stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 515
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

a. Spanish Colonial architectural style

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage
doors

d. Covered front porches

e. Window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels and
terracotta gable vent tubes

39. Phase 1 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 288 dwelling
47. units.

Phase 2 (R-2 Zoned Area)

40. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
48. stamped April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

41. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
49. stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Variety of architectural styles

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage
doors

d. Covered front porches and covered rear patios

e. Garage, window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels,
terracotta gable vent tubes, and window shutters

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 516
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

h. Gable end treatment with varied materials and colors

i. Breaking of massing and with varied materials and colors

42. Phase 2 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 172 lots.
50.

Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area)

43. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and
51. approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process
for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval with specific
regard to the inclusion of the below elements. This is a legislative review for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements
will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and
Development Department.

a. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets,
recesses, window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies.

b. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with, rather than
contrast, with the surrounding desert environment. Accent colors may
be appropriate but used judiciously and with restraint.

c. An architectural theme shall convey a sense of continuity through all
phases.

44. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter
52. landscape setbacks, shall be landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall
be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees and shall be dispersed throughout the parking area to achieve a
minimum 25% shade at maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDAITON & STIPULATIONS:

Stipulation Nos. 38, 41, and 44 are not necessary. All development within the City of
Phoenix is subject to the Dark Sky Ordinance. Stipulation No. 41 is redundant since
Stipulation No. 25 already covers improvements to Jenny Lin Road, as requested by the
Street Transportation Department. Stipulation No. 44 is not necessary because the
Water Services Department (WSD) will require the developer to extend and expand
water and sewer infrastructure as required by WSD during the development review
process.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 517
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-8-22-1

Staff does not recommend Stipulation No 39 regarding restricting public parking access
along Jenny Lin Road. The street will be dedicating as public right-of-way to the County,
therefore the County would need to approve the parking restriction.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 518
ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 1, 2023

ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-8-22-1 (Companion Case GPA-RV-1-22-1)
Location: Northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road and the southeast
corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road
From: C-3, S-1, County RU-43 (Pending annexation), C-2, and Pending S-1
To: R-2, R-3, and R-3A
Acreage: 79.29
Proposal: Single-family and multifamily residential
Applicant: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC
Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Rio Vista 5/9/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional stipulations.
Vote: 5-1.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 1, 2023 with
an additional stipulation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-8-22-1, per the staff
memo dated June 1, 2023 with an additional stipulation that pedestrian access shall be provided
to future development to the east for each phase of development.

Maker: Busching
Second: Mangum
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Howard
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal will develop a vacant property and as stipulated, will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.

2. The stipulated landscape setbacks and planting standards are above the required
minimum standards and will make the proposal a compatible addition to the neighboring
area.

3. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans and initiatives, such as the
Housing Phoenix Plan, the Tree and Shade Master Plan, the Complete Streets

Page 519
Guidelines, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan.

Stipulations:

Overall Site

1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential Development
(PRD) option.

2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be provided along the west property line,
except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a minimum building setback
of 55 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west property
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-
tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings with a
staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of
75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

5. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native nectar
species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

6. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade,
calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown on a shading study, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments, that
visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
enhanced landscaping on both sides within minimum 250-square-foot landscape areas
and shall incorporate a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted with a variety
of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

Page 520
10. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all site entries and exits to slow down
vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

11. Each phase of the development shall provide bicycle infrastructure as described
below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for units without garages at a rate of
0.25 spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit, up to a maximum of 50
spaces.

b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per
multifamily residential and single-family residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces. Guest bicycle parking for single-family residential shall
be located in open space and amenity areas. Bicycle parking spaces shall be
provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the community
center and/or clubhouse and open space areas and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic
racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of
the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained on site
within an amenity area or near a primary site entrance. The bicycle repair
station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair
station shall include, but not be limited to standard repair tools affixed to the
station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground,
and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while
making adjustments to the bike.

12. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian Circulation
Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of the Planned
Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be
provided and updated with each phase of development to include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
west side of the site adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and a minimum 10-foot-
wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within the easement, in
accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as approved or modified by
the Planning and Development department.

b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect all phases of
the development, including the area between Project II and Project III.

c. Four pedestrian connections shall be provided from the site leading to the
adjacent trails directly east or west of the site.

D. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST FOR EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT.

13. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day night-level
(DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. A
sealed and signed analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona with a proficiency in
Page 521
residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be included with the building plans
submitted for Phoenix Building Construction Code compliance review to the Planning
and Development Department. The engineer shall note in the analysis that the building
design is capable of achieving the required Noise Level Reduction.

14. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided along the west perimeter of the site. The wall
height shall be determined through a noise analysis prepared by a registered
professional engineer. The wall shall be constructed of minimum 8-inch-thick concrete
masonry units (CMU) or of cast-in-place concrete and contain no openings unless they
are above the minimum height required for adequate noise mitigation or for drainage.
Noise walls shall be constructed to wrap around corner lots and areas near
intersections. Wrap around walls, upon turning a corner, shall continue for at least 120
feet (approximately two lot widths), as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

15. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls shall vary by a minimum of four feet every
400 lineal feet to visually reflect a meandering or staggered setback, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

16. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, shall incorporate stone veneer, stonework, or
integral color CMU block, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. Interior walls and privacy fencing, excluding walls located between lots, shall use
materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

18. A minimum of 15% of each phase shall be retained as open space, including washes
and hillside areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

19. Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active
recreation amenities, such as a tot lot, picnic areas, seating features, garden
amenities, or similar amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing shall be
incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or private open space
areas, natural and/or improved drainageways or recreational areas, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

21. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting through color,
texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

22. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall include
Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure and 5% of the required parking spaces
shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

23. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks and minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips
located between the back of curb and sidewalk within the development shall be
constructed and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 522
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

24. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, and minimum 5-foot-
wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, or wider to meet
MCDOT minimum standards shall be constructed along the south side of Jenny Lin
Road, the east side of the I-17 frontage road, and the north side of Circle Mountain
Road, planted to the following standards. The developer shall record a landscaping
maintenance agreement with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) requiring the landowner and/or property management to maintain the
installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of-way to the following planting standards,
as approved by MCDOT and the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent
with a pedestrian environment.

25. All right-of-way dedications and street improvements for Circle Mountain Road, the I-
17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road shall comply with Maricopa County Department
of Transportation (MCDOT) requirements, as approved by MCDOT. WHERE
POSSIBLE THE COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL CROSS SECTION SHALL BE
UTILIZED FOR JENNY LIN ROAD.

26. A minimum 65-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated, and the east half of the I-17
frontage road shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required, and approved
by MCDOT.

27. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the north
side of the minor collector street along the southern boundary of Project III. The
improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and include a
minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

28. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the full
width of the minor collector street along the northern boundary of Project II. The
improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and include
minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot-wide

Page 523
landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

29. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at all public
street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout the entirety of
the site, as approved by the Street Transportation Department and the Planning and
Development Department.

30. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department and MCDOT (where applicable). All improvements shall comply with all
ADA accessibility standards.

31. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) for this development.

32. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective purchasers and
renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the I-17
Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by
the City prior to recordation.

33. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall conduct
Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development
area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to clearing and grubbing,
landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

34. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I data
testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist, determines
such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct Phase II
archeological data recovery excavations.

35. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.

36. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.

37. PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY RESIDENCES, ALL EXISTING WELLS
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CAPPED AND ABANDONED, AS
REQUIRED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (ADWR).

38. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL PETITION THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR STREET LIGHT
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE POSSIBLE IN AN EFFORT
TO PROTECT DARK SKIES IMPLEMENT AND ABIDE BY ALL CITY OF PHOENIX
DARK SKY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

39. EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, THERE SHALL BE NO PUBLIC
PARKING, CONSTRUCTION PARKING, OR PUBLIC INGRESS AND EGRESS TO
Page 524
JENNY LIN ROAD, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

40. PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS SHALL BE FROM CIRCLE MOUNTAIN
39. ROAD, OR THE FRONTAGE ROAD, AND ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
AND ACCESS MAY OCCUR ON JENNY LIN ROAD DURING PARTS OF PROJECT
III, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

41. THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPROVE THE SOUTH HALF OF JENNY LIN ROAD IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL CROSS
SECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

42. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROMPTLY REPAIR ANY ROADWAY DAMAGE THAT
40. MAY OCCUR ON JENNY LIN ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION.

43. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INCLUDE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE IN FUTURE
41. LEASES REQUIRING ALL RESIDENTS OF PROJECT III TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
A PORTION OF JENNY LIN ROAD IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND NO TRESPASS
IS PERMITTED.

44. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL EXTEND THE CITY OF PHOENIX WATER LINE
ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE PROJECT III DEVELOPMENT.

Phase 1 (R-3 Zoned Area)

37. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped May
45. 4, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
42. Development Department.

38. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
46. August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as modified by these
43. stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Spanish Colonial architectural style

b. Windows and glass doors with muntin’s and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage doors

d. Covered front porches

e. Window and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels and terracotta
gable vent tubes

39. Phase 1 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 288 dwelling units.
47.
44.

Page 525
Phase 2 (R-2 Zoned Area)

40. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
48. April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
45. Development Department.

41. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
49. August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as modified by these
46. stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Variety of architectural styles

b. Windows and glass doors with muntin’s and mullions

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage doors

d. Covered front porches and covered rear patios

e. Garage, window, and door treatment

f. Decorative doors

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels, terracotta
gable vent tubes, and window shutters

h. Gable end treatment with varied materials and colors

i. Breaking of massing and with varied materials and colors

42. Phase 2 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 172 lots.
50.
47.

Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area)

43. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and approved by
51. the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation
48. modification prior to preliminary site plan approval with specific regard to the inclusion
of the below elements. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only.
Specific development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

a. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies.

b. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with, rather than contrast,
with the surrounding desert environment. Accent colors may be appropriate but
used judiciously and with restraint.

c. An architectural theme shall convey a sense of continuity through all phases.

44. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter landscape
52. setbacks, shall be landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with
Page 526
49. minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees and shall be
dispersed throughout the parking area to achieve a minimum 25% shade at maturity,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.

Page 527
ATTACHMENT E

CITY OF PHOENIX
MAY 9 2023
Planning & Development
Department

Page 528
Page 529
Page 530
Page 531
Racelle Escolar

From: H B
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Victoria C Murrillo; gabriel.jaramillo@phoenix.gov; marcia.busching@phoenix.gov;
Tricia Gomes; steve.gaynor@phoenix.gov
Subject: Meeting GPA-RV-1-22-1 - I requested to speak and was not allowed to!

Hello,

I requested to speak and was not allowed to. You need to fix your system and allow everyone online
who wants to speak, speak.

I completely agreed with James.

I'm very frustrated with this and very passionate ‐ so I have a lot to say.

My questions are for the Phoenix Planning and Development Department ...
We did not get proper communication that the school would be going in. Believe me ‐ multiple
neighbors would have told you that is a bad idea.
Last year, we had a Great Hearts school built less than a mile from this prooposed development and
the traffic is a mess.
Your job is to "plan and develop". That means you work with all necessary entities to plan accordingly.
I feel the planning and development department dropped the ball and didn't plan properly for the
school and now it's happening again. As James said ‐ There are 3 other proposed builds. That's a lot of
new builds off one road in less than a 1 mile radius.
Why have you not included ADOT and MCDOT in all these meetings? Why are you not working closely
with them to "plan" accordingly?

Can you tell me where, in Arizona, that there is a Frontage Road (with no other street access ‐ back streets, side streets,
etc), that has a high traffic school, multiple home sites, already flowing traffic, AND a "Master Planned Community"???
You can't! Because it's impractical and unsafe!
All the neighborhoods that live off the Frontage Road, as well as all the school children/parents ‐ have ONE STREET to
enter and exit.
Phoenix Frontage Roads at least have other streets that they can detour and drive through if the Frontage Road is full.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT!!
I know you all don't care because you either don't know the area, don't live in the area, or won't be impacted. But this
WILL CAUSE SAFETY HAZARDS and MASS CONGESTION!!
I take pictures EVERYTIME the Frontage Road is backed up. It's backed up quite often.
An average household has 2 cars. The projections of 1579 units will lead to an additional 3158+ Cars on the Frontage
Road. This is absurd and again UNSAFE! You will be causing traffic congestion. Zoning from 2007 is not updated to
current traffic flow. Why have you not rezoned since 2007?? Zoning should be updated first.
The fact that phase 3 and 4 are unknown worries and frustrates me even more.
I don't understand why you're insistant on unnecessarily cramming too many homes in one area. There is NO reason
they can't build 1/2 acre to 1 acre lots there (similar to New River homes).
I'm not trying to be unreasonable and say don't build. But DO NOT put a massive amount of homes off a single Frontage
Road. We've had accidents, fires, and emergencies in the past which have caused the Frontage Road to close for hours

Page 532
(leaving all residents unable to go to their homes).
Once these projected homes are built, you can't just tear them down if you find that you screwed up. If you build these
and the Frontage Road is bumper to bumper (unsafe traffic congestion), then what???? You all just turn your head and
say oh ‐ at least we made money ‐ too bad for those neighbors. It will never go back, it will never get better. Traffic is
already increasing.
That agreement was only with Jennylin Neighbors. Not any other neighbors.
He is NOT adding another lane! The set backs won't help! Having the frontage road narrow, then widen at these homes,
then narrow again ‐ is pointless!
This decision can destroy the area.
Don't be greedy and do what's right for the community.
The proposed density is too much for the Frontage Road!
Also, this has nothing to do with the TSMC plant and homes needed. There are THOUSANDS of acres all around the plant
that can be built on ‐ you do NOT need to shove homes into our small area.
Please make the right decision and do NOT build apartments and build only homes on 1/2 acre and 1 acre lots.
Why have you know "planned" to build an on/off ramp between Anthem and New River exits both north and south
bound?? That will help with the traffic.
So ‐ what are you doing to plan for the mass traffic congestion this will cause?
I oppose this until you plan properly and find solutions to be proactive with the traffic congestion this will cause.

I'm disappointed and frustrated that you simply agree to everything.

Thank you,
Harmony Brown

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]

Page 533
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

To: Alan Stephenson Date: June 23, 2023
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Director

Subject: ITEM NO.97 ON THE JULY 3, 2023 FORMAL AGENDA - PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDINANCE ADOPTION - REZONING APPLICATION Z-8-22-1 -
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1-17 AND CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD AND THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 1-17 AND JENNY LIN ROAD (ORDINANCE G- )

Item No. 97, Rezoning Application Z-8-22-1, is a request to rezone 79.29 acres located at
the northeast corner of 1-17 and C ircle Mountain Road and the southeast corner of 1-17
and Jenny Lin Road from C-2 (Intermediate C ommercial), C-3 (General Commercial), S-1
(Ranch or Farm Residence), County RU-43 (One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) (Pending
Annexation), and Pending S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R-2 (Multifamily Residence
District), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District), and R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) to
allow single-family and multifamily residential.

The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request on May 9, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with additional stipulations, by a
5-1 vote.

The Planning Commission heard this request on June 1, 2023, and recommended
approval, per the staff memo dated June 1, 2023 with an additional stipulation, by a 8-0
vote.

The purpose of this is memo is to recommend modifications to Stipulation Nos. 27 and
28 to add landscape planting standards within the right-of-way.

The revised stipulations are listed below with updates in BOLD AND CAPITAL letters.

Staff recommends approval, subject to the following stipulations:

Overall Site

1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential
Development (PRO) option.

2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be provided along the west property
line, except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a minimum
building setback of 55 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

Page 534
Page 535
Page 536
Page 537
Page 538
Page 539
Page 540
Page 541
Page 542
Page 543

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2023-07-03 complete

1. ¶ Summary

Item text

Supporting documents

2. ¶ Liquor License - Salt Tacos Y Tequila

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ Liquor License - Stop N Shop Mart

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ Liquor License - The Belair

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Liquor License - Black Mountain Tavern

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Parish

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Parish

Item text

Supporting documents

8. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Teamsters Local 104

Item text

Supporting documents

9. ¶ Liquor License - EZ Groceries LLC

Item text

Supporting documents

10. ¶ Liquor License - El Rey de Los Ostiones

Item text

Supporting documents

11. ¶ Liquor License - El Rey de Los Ostiones

Item text

Supporting documents

12. ¶ Liquor License - Copper & Sage Camelback

Item text

Supporting documents

13. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Puppy Love Foundation

Item text

Supporting documents

14. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Puppy Love Foundation

Item text

Supporting documents

15. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Puppy Love Foundation

Item text

Supporting documents

16. ¶ Liquor License - Grab N Go 808

Item text

Supporting documents

17. ¶ Liquor License - Taqueria Obregon

Item text

Supporting documents

18. ¶ Liquor License - Tres Amigos

Item text

Supporting documents

19. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Madison Camelview Parent Teacher

Item text

Supporting documents

20. ¶ Liquor License - Modern Market

Item text

Supporting documents

21. ¶ Liquor License - Smart & Final #720

Item text

Supporting documents

22. ¶ Liquor License - WWOZ Phoenix Pinnacle Peak LLC

Item text

Supporting documents

23. ¶ Liquor License - Smart & Final #721

Item text

Supporting documents

24. ¶ Liquor License - Moon Valley Country Club

Item text

Supporting documents

25. ¶ Liquor License - Smart & Final #499

Item text

Supporting documents

26. ¶ Liquor License - Smart & Final #491

Item text

Supporting documents

27. ¶ Liquor License - Moxy Phoenix Downtown