Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.
An interesting story drew my attention in the wake of the Stonehaven decision by a majority of Glendale’s city council (5 to 2 vote in favor). Apparently these members of the city council, Mayor Jerry Weiers, Vice Mayor Ian Hugh and Councilmembers Lauren Tolmachoff, Jaime Aldama and Bart Turner saw no issue with granting the developers, John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes, the right to plant about 600 small lots (4,000 SF and 4,500 SF) on 130+ acres in the development known as Stonehaven.
The developers have also been granted greater lot coverage of 55%. Typically, Glendale has used 40% to 45% lot coverage. That means the home can use 40% to 45% of the lot. The rest is a front yard, side yards and a back yard. In the approved Stonehaven plan front yards will be 10 to 15 feet in depth and back yards will be 10 to 15 feet in depth. My back patio is 12 feet in depth and I try to envision having a rear yard block wall abutting my patio. It is absurd. Just for kicks measure 10 feet or 15 feet from your back door and imagine having a block wall at that distance.
Then I read an article by Home & Design and republished by AZBigMedia. Here is the link: http://roselawgroupreporter.com/2017/08/homebuyers-willing-sacrifice-square-footage-bigger-yard/?utm_source=Rose+Law+Group+Reporter+Newsletter&utm_campaign=305ef20b62-8-18-2017+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0fa483909f-305ef20b62-17921525 .
The most startling results of a Wakefield Research survey commissioned by Taylor Morrison (national homebuilder) said, “Outdoor living is becoming just as important as the indoors. According to a consumer survey conducted by Wakefield Research on behalf of Taylor Morrison, a leading national homebuilder and developer, recent and prospective homebuyers are craving green space. More than half (56 percent) of homebuyers surveyed would be willing to sacrifice a larger house to obtain a bigger yard.
The survey also found the most important exterior feature of a home is distance from neighboring homes. Both millennials (48 percent) and non-millennials (53 percent) believe this breathing room is key, beating other curb appeal elements such as siding, driveway styles, exterior paint color and roofing finishes.”
Well, doesn’t this fly in the face of the pro-Stonehaven rhetoric touting “that millennials and seniors would prefer the least amount of yard possible?” Their rationale was that new home buyers didn’t want to maintain the backyard grass. Many back yards are graveled and xeroscaped these days. Whether it’s grass or patio space, upkeep and work to keep it looking good is required. What they said was illogical and this Taylor Morrison study proves the point.
No, I suspect it was all about the almighty dollar. They demanded greater density because it translates into greater profitability. Since when must a city accommodate a private entity’s demand for greater profitability at the expense of the adjacent neighborhoods (all of whom opposed Stonehaven’s amended plan)?
Think about it. Have you ever seen a millionaire buy a large home on a 4,000 SF lot? Of course not. They buy large homes on large lots to insure their privacy (among other reasons). Privacy in the form of large lot space (or even adequate lot space) is a commodity that today’s developers have decided that the masses of home buyers no longer merit. They decide what you should have, always keeping their bottom lines primary, and then sell the concept to you as the latest and greatest that you must have. So, we buy the bells and whistles while ignoring basic amenities such as sufficient space to breathe and grow families.
I’m thankful I grew up in a different era. Perhaps I’m too old-fashioned but if so, I don’t care. I’m glad I grew up with room to breathe. To this day I value the privacy my property provides. It’s hard to imagine that even millennials don’t want the same and that privacy is no longer important.
© Joyce Clark, 2017
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Ms. Clark:
I fully understand that you are still upset with the decision relative to the Stonehaven project, however our community will simply have to abide with this decision and trust it works out as intended.
There are a couple of interesting items that are attached to that decision perhaps citizens may or may not be aware of. It appears the Planning Department has initiated requests for zoning changes applicable to RI-4 parcels and it is interesting to discover they seem to be using the standards created for Stonehaven as the rule rather than the exception. My observation seems to indicate property owners usually initiated zoning requests, not the City. There was a recent application for a zoning change related to a 4,000 Sq. Ft parcel where the lot size could be as small as 3,200 Sq. Ft. (Setbacks, lot coverages are a guess at best)
While we are on the subject of Stonehaven has there been any progress report relative to when the community will see construction start in the Stonehaven development and what is the status of the anticipated agreement between the City and developer to start construction of Bethany Home Road?
The City recently conducted a series of informational meetings related to a proposed water/sewer/trash rate increase and the staff members involved in that process should feel proud of their efforts. The information was presented in an easily understandable format and staff were eager to answer any questions residents had. This type of informational meeting format allowed conversation/discussion with individuals familiar with the actual item. The group was courteous, professional and eager to engage the citizens in this matter of importance. Excellent job folks.
I suspect there are some details to be addressed and this matter will come before the Council I understand in September. It seems to be reasonable as there apparently has not been an increase since 2010.
Jack Martino
Jack, I have heard nothing further about the start of the Stonehaven project. It must now go through Design Review and that can take several months. I do not expect to see any activity until 2018. The city is working on a plan relative to Bethany Home Road that may accelerate its construction.
I cannot imagine the front yard of my home being 10 ft from the street and a block wall from 12 to 15 ft from my home especially if I had small children or grandchildren with very little space to play in and enjoy. We must hope and pray the builders will do their own survey to see what people really want because some of us have questioned many people who say they want large yards or at least 8,000 sq ft. If a fire started in one home most likely two or three homes would be damaged being five feet apart. Interesting would be a study to see how long people stay in a home of 4 to 5000 sq ft lot versus someone with a home of 8,000 sq ft or more. Starter homes which is what these would be tend to turn over much much faster and many times become rentals for the investors deteriorating the neighborhood.
The city has wasted so much of the tax payers money in the past and now want to spend more money for research and studies to put in light rail which is impossible because of the millions it would cost. Glendale has other projects that the people need such as road improvements and finish projects they already started such as Heroes Park.
Everyone on the present council are intelligent people and should be able to make intelligent decisions that will benefit the people who voted them in. Please let your concerns be know to your council and Mayor so they will represent you and not special interest. Glendale is on the move and with all of us working together we will have a great city.
Sorry folks for not posting your comments right away. The host site would not sync properly until today.