Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 20

31

Residential development status in the Yucca district

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 31, 2020
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

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.

I view Facebook and NextDoor sites regularly. There are always questions about what’s coming here or what’s coming there. It’s been awhile since I have done any updates about development in our district. Trust me, there is a great deal. I’m going to tackle residential development first and in follow up blogs I will cover commercial development.

Let’s start with the project we all love to hate…Stonehaven. A little background on this one. It will have 1,364 lots. Some of them could be as small as 3,000 and 3,500 square foot sized lots. Unfortunately, a majority of council approved this. Only Vice Mayor Malnar and I voted in opposition. This was despite 1,000 local Yucca district resident signatures presented in a petition of opposition to the proposed project to the city council. This council squandered an opportunity to create a signature residential subdivision on one of the last remaining large parcels slated for development. It is actually larger than Rovey Farms Estates which contains about 800 homes. However, the Rovey Farm lot sizes range from 7,000 square feet to over an acre in size.

The Stonehaven subdivision is located at 9050 W. Camelback Road. On its south side. which abuts the north side of Camelback Road, it goes from 87th Avenue to 91st Avenue. Its west side goes from the Grand Canal to Camelback Road. Its east side does the same and surrounds already existent housing and commercial. Its north side goes from 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue, just south of the Grand Canal.

Here is the latest information on its progress which only addresses 565 of the 1,365 lots:

  • Parcel 2 167 lots         Final Plat approved
  • Parcel 3 72 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 4 38 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 5 85 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 6 37 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 7 25 lots         In design review, Taylor Morrison Homes
  • Parcel 8 45 lots         In design review, Taylor Morrison Homes 
  • Parcel 13A 67 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes
  • Parcel 14 29 lots         In design review, Pulte Homes

When design review is complete we can assume construction of these homes will begin. You might have noticed the activity on the 83rd Avenue side of the project. The large concrete pipes are the sewer pipes which are s-l-o-w-l-y being installed. All of the infrastructure, water, sewer, electrical,  internal roads and internet, must be installed before work can begin on Bethany Home Road (now known as Cardinals Way) and construction of homes can begin.

Another residential project that has received entitlement but no design review has been submitted, is Orangewood Terrace at 7901 W. Orangewood Avenue. It will be a subdivision whose lot sizes (51 lots) is large and compatible with the large lots adjacent to the proposed subdivision.

The Orangewood Ranch subdivision is located at 7536 N. 83rd Avenue and is comprised of 43 lots. Its lots will be comparable to the Rovey Farm Estates subdivision. It is entitled but has not submitted for design review.

The Enclave at Rovey Farms subdivision, with 43 lots, located at 8806 W. Emil Rovey Parkway is currently in design review. Once that is approved expect construction to begin.

The Bethany Ranch subdivision of 56 lots, located at 5850 N. 71st Avenue and Bethany Home Road is a Garrett Walker project. It is nearly finished. All lots are sold and the last homes within it are in various stages of construction. I note that this subdivision was immensely successful and once the model homes were open they sold out in under a year.

Northern Ridge Estates subdivision containing 53 lots by KB Homes now has its model homes open. I expect it to be sold out within 6 months. It is located at 8237 W. Northern Avenue, adjacent to 83rd Avenue.

The Garden Grove and Affinity at Positano subdivisions of 138 lots located at 8510 and 8450 W. Glendale Avenue are Taylor Morrison/K Hovanian projects. They only have a few lots left. I expect the last lots to be sold by the end of February.

Cadance at Westgate Village subdivision located at 8835 W. Glendale Avenue is another K. Hovanian project of 71 lots of primarily R1-5 (5,000 sf lots). The site is currently being prepared and the first model home is under construction.

El Prado I and II subdivisions located at 7932 W. Camelback Road is another Taylor Morrison project with 119 lots. The El Prado II lot sizes abutting the acre lot homes to the west of the project will be larger lots compatible to those large lots. This project is just beginning construction of its infrastructure.

The Camelback Village subdivision located at 8420 W. Camelback Road has 53 lots by Hillstone Homes. It is entitled but has not submitted for design review.

The Jaafar Estates subdivision will be at 7111 N. 83rd Avenue and is comprised of 23 lots. It has not submitted for design review. This is the only subdivision I opposed and did not vote for. It is a long, narrow strip of land with 4,500 square foot lots.  It should not have been approved by council as it does not meet the concept of 83rd Avenue as a large lot corridor. It has not submitted for design review.

That’s 13 subdivisions either nearly sold out, under construction, under design review or in some cases, have not yet submitted for design review. This is stunning and amazing. I don’t think anyone realizes the magnitude of residential development occurring in our district.

Here’s a trivia fact I discovered while reviewing the last census data available for our area. The Yucca district, since the last census in 2010, has grown in population by 104%. Each city district is supposed to have a generally equal population. In 2010, the figure was 45,000 per district. A doubling of the Yucca district population since 2010 requires that the city conduct a redistricting of the city in order to once again equalize the district populations. Once the 2020 figures are compiled and released by the federal government in 2021 I will ask that redistricting begin.

In my next blog I will cover apartment and hotels. Believe me, there are plenty of those as well!

© Joyce Clark, 2020         

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.

Feb 17

23

Yucca district proposed residential projects on horizon

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 23, 2017
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in the blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In the two months since I returned as the Yucca district councilmember I have met with developers of at least 6 proposed residential developments in the district. Some good…some not so good. I will support those that support my goal of Upgrading Glendale. Occasionally there will be a project that doesn’t Upgrade Glendale but also does no major harm either. In those cases there may not be an opportunity to upgrade the proposal. Here is an overview of the current crop of applicants:

  1. Bethany Ranch – the property is located at the southwest corner of Bethany Home Road and 71st Avenue. The current zoning on the property is R 1-6 (6,000 square foot lots). All of the existent homes surrounding this property are also R 1-6. The applicant is asking for a Rezoning to R 1-6 PRD (Planned Residential Development) and approval of its Preliminary Plat. As much as I would like to see this property “upzoned” it is not realistic when all of the homes in the area are on the same lot sizes. I am concerned about the very skinny lots adjacent to 71st Avenue and will ask for further explanation at the applicant’s announced Neighborhood Meeting on March 1st at 6 PM at Coyote Ridge Elementary School, 7677 W. Bethany Home Road. I hope you will join me in learning more about this proposed project.
  2. Stonehaven – the property is located between the Grand Canal and Camelback Road, 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue. The applicant, Pulte Homes is asking for a “Minor General Plan Amendment” increasing the density from the council approved 1,100+ homes to over 1,400 homes with some lots as small as 3,000 square feet. I do not support this proposal as it is not in keeping with Upgrading Glendale. I hope you will join me in asking the Planning Department to recommend denial and asking the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to deny the applicant’s request.
  3. Unnamed – the property is located at the southeast corner of Northern Avenue and 83rd Avenue (Yucca district’s large lot corridor). The applicant is proposing R 1-6 (6,000 square foot) lots. Across 83rd Avenue to the west are one acre, irrigated properties. To the south are two gated, large lot communities on the east side of 83rd Avenue. I do not support this proposal as its proposed lots are not comparable to the properties closest to it. It does not advance Upgrading Glendale. The applicant is in the preliminary stages and has not held a Neighborhood Meeting yet.
  4. Jaafar Estates – the property is located on the east side of 83rd Avenue, just north of Glen Eden Estates (at the northeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Glendale Avenue). It is a long, skinny piece of property, a little over 5 acres in size. It is on the east side of 83rd Avenue and just south of the Tennis Ranch. In its Neighborhood Meeting the applicant is requesting R4 zoning allowing approximately 24 lots. The Glen Eden subdivision is R 1-7 (7,000 square foot lots) and across the street on the west side of 83rd Avenue is Rovey Farm Estates with its minimum sized lots of R 1-8 (minimum of 8,000 square foot lots). I will not support this proposal as it does not advance Upgrading Glendale.
  5. Orangewood Terrace – the property is located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, just west of 79th Avenue. The applicant has held its Neighborhood Meeting and has been sensitive to the requests of the adjoining neighborhoods. The applicant will place its largest lots abutting 79th Avenue (a street of acre, irrigated properties) and the balance of the project will be R 1-8, matching the lot sizes of West Glenn Estates. The applicant has made sure to accommodate the adjacent neighborhoods by making sure  Myrtle Avenue has no connection to 79th Avenue or to the streets in West Glenn Estates. It is a project that I can support.
  6. Bella Vista Homes – the property is located south of Bethany Home Road and east of 83rd Avenue. The existent zoning is SR-17 (17,000 square foot lots) and the applicant proposes to keep that zoning. The applicant has not held its Neighborhood Meeting yet and is in preliminary discussions with the city’s Planning Department. Based upon what I have learned to date it is a project that exemplifies the goal of Upgrading Glendale.

So there you have it. All of these proposals have further steps in the process to gain approval that have not been taken yet. Some will succeed. Others will fall by the wayside. As residents of the Yucca district it is our responsibility to support those projects that help to make our district and our city a better place to live. It’s also our responsibility to disapprove those projects that do not meet that goal.

In the coming months there may be the opportunity to welcome some wonderful commercial developments to Glendale. They are still in the “talking stage” and thus must remain confidential. When the principals are comfortable with making their announcements, I will be introducing those to you as well.

As the economy rebounds, the Yucca district has once again become the “hot spot” for residential and commercial development. It’s up to us to be discerning and to remember, does this proposed project Upgrade Glendale?

© 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.