Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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.

Note: As a councilmember representing the Yucca district and in opposition to the proposed Stonehaven changes, I may not lobby fellow councilmembers about this project. The Arizona Open Meeting Law prohibits “daisy chaining” by councilmembers. That means I cannot go to the mayor and each councilmember to try to convince them to oppose the project. I am, in essence, handicapped by state law. The proponents of the Stonehaven changes do not have such a constraint and are busy lobbying every councilmember to gain their support. Who will the councilmembers represent? Their citizens or special interests? We will find out on June 27th when this proposal is scheduled to go before the city council for a vote of denial or approval.

On Wednesday evening, I received the usual email blast entitled “Mayor’s Business of the Week.” In his email the lead headline is…Stonehaven is proof that Glendale has turned a corner.  Here is his statement:

“Stonehaven

 Office of the Mayor Jerry P. Weiers

Mayoral Statement Date: 6/7/2017 Issue/Event: StoneHaven

Description: Mayor Weiers is providing a statement of support for the StoneHaven Master Planned Community being proposed by John F. Long Properties and Pulte Homes near 91st & Camelback Rd.

Statement:

StoneHaven is Proof That Glendale Has Turned a Corner

In the coming weeks the Glendale City Council will vote on the most impactful housing development project our city has seen in years.

This is cause for celebration in Glendale, as two successful Arizona companies, Pulte Homes and John F. Long Properties, propose to invest $450 million on a nearly 400-acre residential and retail project near 91st Avenue and Camelback Road. The proposal has undergone careful study, and this one has all the signs of a winner.

StoneHaven will bring 1,365 high-quality, single-family homes and add neighborhood retail businesses to the southern part of our community generating $49 million in new local city revenues, according to a city-commissioned study. This will help improve our security and quality of life, as we provide funds for police, fire protection, roads and parks. An influx of new residents also means new customers for businesses at Westgate and other parts of the city.

Glendale has turned a corner.

Before I took office we were going through very tough times. It wasn’t too long ago that businesses were struggling, and the municipal budget was in the red. Together, we have overcome those obstacles, and Glendale is once again financially stable.

The city’s sound financial footing has spurred new economic development and growth.

But our work isn’t done.

That’s why approval of this project is so important. It is an infusion of confidence and a boost towards full economic recovery.

As we move forward, we must come to grips with another challenge: the shortage of new housing in Glendale. We are a landlocked city. Undeveloped land is in short supply. That’s why it is imperative that we consider every opportunity for a thoughtful development of vacant land whenever one comes along. StoneHaven is a carefully-crafted traditional master-planned community that integrates residential, commercial and recreational facilities.

I live not too far from the proposed StoneHaven site.

As a neighbor, I welcome the project. One of the many aspects of this project that I’m very excited about is the proposed construction of Bethany Home Road between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue, which is long overdue.

Many of my neighbors shop in Phoenix because of the close proximity to grocery stores and retail business, but with the StoneHaven development our tax dollars will stay here and help Glendale.

I am also gratified by the support from the Glendale Star, Glendale Chamber of Commerce and local school districts.

If I felt this project were bad for Glendale, I would be the first to oppose it. But every study, every review and every staff report tells me that’s not the case. City staff recommends approval.

As Mayor, I must look at the overall, long-term benefits of any project for the good of the city as a whole. StoneHaven is a project that has enormous long-term benefits to Glendale, and is an opportunity that does not come along very often. We must keep our positive momentum moving forward for the city.

We have a leadership team and a city staff that rolled up its collective sleeves and got our fiscal house in order. Our citizens kept the faith, and we are now headed in the right direction.

We should consider ourselves fortunate that we also have business leaders who stuck it out during hard times and are now prepared to invest in our future. We need to respond with the enthusiasm that such an offer deserves.

By embracing projects like StoneHaven, we can make Glendale the very best it can be.”

–Jerry P. Weiers

Media Contact: Kari Sliva, Chief of Staff Office of Glendale Mayor Jerry P. Weiers Office (623) 930-2260 | Direct (623) 930-2292 | Cell (602) 574-2481 | Fax (623) 937-2764 City Hall | 5850 W. Glendale Ave. | Glendale, AZ 85301 | ksliva@glendaleaz.com

The Mayor’s statement sounds as if it was written for him by the PR firm of RoseMosserAllyn, hired by the John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes. For all we know, that may be the case. Some of the more familiar catch phrases used in the Stonehaven PR material are  

  • Pulte Homes and John F. Long Properties, propose to invest $450 million on a nearly 400-acre residential and retail project near 91st Avenue and Camelback Road.”
  • “StoneHaven will bring 1,365 high-quality, single-family homes and add neighborhood retail businesses to the southern part of our community generating $49 million in new local city revenues, according to a city-commissioned study.” (Oops Mayor. The study to which you refer was commissioned by the John F. Long Trust).
  • “…the shortage of new housing in Glendale. We are a landlocked city. Undeveloped land is in short supply. That’s why it is imperative that we consider every opportunity for a thoughtful development of vacant land whenever one comes along. StoneHaven is a carefully-crafted traditional master-planned community that integrates residential, commercial and recreational facilities.”
  • “We must keep our positive momentum moving forward for the city.” (This phrase sounds oddly familiar. Could it be the PR slogan the John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes is using? You bet it is).

Am I disappointed in his statement of support for the proposed changes to the originally approved Stonehaven plan? You bet I am. Am I angry that his statement of support was made 3 weeks before this item is scheduled to come before the entire council? You bet I am.

In his statement he says, “By embracing projects like StoneHaven, we can make Glendale the very best it can be.” How he can believe that creating another Maryvale, with people living cheek to jowl in 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots either behind or adjacent to the two proposed commercial parcels of a “restaurant row” and a grocery store make Glendale the very best it can be? How can he truly believe that the proposed changes to the original plan of 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 square foot lots in favor of a project with over 66% of the lots now 5,500 square feet or less be an upgrade for Glendale?

Oh wait, he says, “We should consider ourselves fortunate that we also have business leaders who stuck it out during hard times and are now prepared to invest in our future. We need to respond with the enthusiasm that such an offer deserves.” Really? No one truly believes this. We’re supposed to be grateful that the John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes have deigned to throw Glendale a bone? Don’t be fooled. It’s all about money. Neither of these entities is throwing all of this money to get a project they desperately want approved if they didn’t stand to make a bundle of cash. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts for Glendale and they certainly don’t deserve anyone’s praise.

Could the fact that Mayor Weiers received a total of $1,000 as campaign contributions from Jacob Long and Jim Miller (the principals of the John F. Long Trust) on 5/19/2016 for his reelection campaign have had any bearing? That’s for you to decide.

However, he seems to have forgotten that he also received money from and had petition signatures collected in his reelection campaign by the very Yucca district residents he now chooses to ignore. He seems to have rejected the notion that he was elected to represent and serve the very residents that voted for him and instead has sided with special moneyed interests.

This is a Mayor who rarely takes a stand on any major Glendale issue but yet has seen fit to announce his support for these special interests on an issue that is major and controversial for Yucca district residents… the very district in which he resides.

This is a Mayor whose major take away in his latest State of the City speech was to call on all of us to make someone’s life better every day. Well, he certainly isn’t doing that for all of the residents adjacent to or near the proposed Stonehaven.

This is a Mayor who has never declared his vision for Glendale. Perhaps if voters knew that it would include not just acceptance of but advocacy for a proposed residential project that will destroy the quality of life, increase traffic and overcrowd local schools for his residents – they might not have voted for him. He won his reelection by a margin of 400+ votes. Would he have won if voters knew that he would support projects such as this? I doubt it.

Lastly, Mayor Weiers says, “One of the many aspects of this project that I’m very excited about is the proposed construction of Bethany Home Road between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue, which is long overdue.” That it’s long overdue is debatable and may or may not be true but he fails to disclose that the city will pay the John F. Long Trust $1.2 million for the north half right-of-way for Bethany Home Road. That act, in and of itself, is precedent setting for the city. The city has never had to pay a developer for right-of-way necessary for a residential development project. Where does that $1.2 million come from? It comes from Development Impact Fees (DIF) paid by the buyers of each house in the project and passed on to the city by the developer. Usually DIF pays for new or upgraded amenities such as parks and libraries as a result of the new residential development. Not this time. The majority of the DIF generated by this residential project will be used to pay for Bethany Home Road right-of-way. Once again, the residents of the Yucca district get screwed.

By the way, the Stonehaven proponent media juggernaut is inviting Yucca residents to an ice cream social. It appears that their mailing list is comprised mainly of the 1,000+ Yucca residents who signed petitions in opposition to the proposed changes in Stonehaven. Somehow or another, I don’t think Yucca residents will sell their souls or principles and suddenly embrace this proposed project for a lousy ice cream cone. Do you? It’s insulting. How dumb do they think we are? They are desperately trying to buy good will…first with a slice of pizza and now with an ice cream cone…really?

© 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.

Today, June 1,2017, the Glendale Star ran my guest commnetary on Stonehaven. I want to thank Mr. Bill Toops who invited me to offer an opinion on Stonehaven’s proposed changes to their 2016 approved plan. It is below in its entirety and here is the link: http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/article_2ab6660a-4549-11e7-8e53-eb73fa60f96f.html

Posted: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:00 am

The responsibility of an elected official is to speak for the people he or she represents. It is a responsibility I cherish. I speak for the residents of the Yucca district. I speak loudly for those often ignored when a project is backed by power, money and privilege. I speak for the over 1,000 residents who have signed a petition opposing StoneHaven’s proposed changes. I speak for those in close proximity to the already approved StoneHaven project when those developers use code words like flexibility and diversity to mask their request for greater density in their quest for greater profitability. I speak for all Yucca residents still unaware of the implications of this project on their daily lives.

I speak for someone who, in opposition, after work every day, walked his neighborhood to get petition signatures in Camelback Park immediately adjacent to proposed StoneHaven. He is concerned about the tremendous impact this project will have on his local traffic. Even with a completed Bethany Home Road, daily traffic counts on surrounding streets will sky rocket by another 15,000 daily trips.

I speak for another who also collected signatures. He owns an acre adjacent to this proposed project. He recognizes the increased density of an additional 200 homes bringing the total to 1,392 homes will devalue his home and property.  He is thinking of selling.

I speak for a teacher concerned about the 1,000 students StoneHaven will produce. She knows the school districts said they can accommodate them, but she is in the trenches and knows that’s not really true. School districts receive developer dollars for additional students. Do those dollars influence their thinking?

I speak for the young mother out collecting signatures while pushing her baby in its stroller because StoneHaven developers have failed to provide the amenities included in other Valley cities where they also build. Instead, they expect the new residents to crowd the adjacent three-acre neighborhood Pasadena Park, the city-owned five-acre Sunset Ridge Park and the still unfinished after a 20-year wait, Heroes Park, with only 20 of its 88 acres developed … parks her family already uses.

I speak for voices not opposed to StoneHaven. They only ask that the original approved version be upheld and that the latest proposed changes of 4,000/4,500 square-foot lots be denied. They realize, as do all, this is a major prime parcel in Glendale. They know other residents will have to battle the precedent set by this proposal. They expect a development matching and enhancing the existing Yucca district development. They do not expect a development that cannibalizes the surrounding area.

StoneHaven is billed as an infill project and in the strictest sense of the word, it is. National studies have concluded that infill development results in nearby residents bearing all associated costs; increased traffic, congestion in local schools, etc., even though it may provide a touted tax benefit to a community as a whole.

It is their reasonable expectation that completion of Bethany Home Road not be used as the rationale for approval of draconian StoneHaven changes.

I speak for this and countless neighborhoods in Glendale that have tried to fend off unwanted development only to have their voices overridden by special interests; like this one with ample funds to erect costly billboards, but with no ties to the area.

This is not NIMBY. The first version of StoneHaven was an approved project with little pushback. I direct you to my recent blog post, called Upgrade Glendale, at www.joyceclarkunfiltered.com, where I make a case for not “settling” here, or in any other location in Glendale.

Lastly, I speak for all of the neighborhood voices that simply ask that Glendale’s elected officials listen to them and support them, rather than the outside moneyed interests who call this a beneficial economic development.

On June 27, who will your councilmembers speak for?

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.

There have been so many numbers circulating about what Stonehaven is and is not. Did you know that the applicants, the John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes, originally submitted their new plan with 3,000 SF lots? They revised their new plan to 4,000/4,500 SF lots when the Planning Department advised them that there is no R 1-3 zoning category in Glendale and it would not be supported.

The applicants represent verbally that they expect Bethany Home Road to be completed before the contractual drop-dead date of January 1, 2021. The only date that should be relied upon in is the date within the agreement between the city and the John F. Long Trust.

Within this agreement the city must pay $1.2 million to the John F. Long Trust for the north half of the Bethany Home Road right-of-way (ROW). This is precedent setting. The city historically has never paid a developer for ROW to satisfy the transportation needs created by the project itself.

The city plans to pay this $1.2 million for the north half of Bethany Home Road right-of-way from the Development Impact Fees (DIF) generated by every home within the project. Instead of the ability to use DIF paid to the city for Heroes Park or other projects, the city will use a majority of the DIF to pay $1.2 million to the John F. Long Trust.

Proponents of the new plan throw out a figure of $49 million in new revenue to the city. That is over a period of 7 to 10 years, averaging about $4 million a year. The proponents had to really stretch to come up with this figure for they even included the city tax you pay on your electric, gas, cable and phone bills within that number. They also fail to tell you that the majority of the DIF generated within their stated $49 million will go right back to the John F. Long Trust to pay for the Bethany Home ROW.

Another little known fact is that each and every home within Glendale does not earn enough annual tax revenue to pay for the annual services (public safety is just one) the city provides to that home. I do not know what the current annual loss per home to the city is. The figure I learned years ago was $200 per home annually.

Typically, a developer will make a “donation” to the school districts that will be affected by the influx of new students. It could be $200, $500 or $1,000 per home. No one knows the real figure as it is between the developer and the school district. Is it any wonder that school districts never withhold their approval for a new subdivision? Who pays for this “donation?” Not the developer. It is added to the price of the home as is the Development Impact Fee (DIF). That means the buyer of a home in Stonehaven automatically pays for DIF and the “donation” to the school district(s). This should be of interest to the potential home buyer, especially if that person is an “empty-nester” or millennial with no children.

With all of the information flying about, sure to become even more intense, before the vote of the city council is made at June 27, 2017 city council meeting, here are some facts as known as of this date:

  • Fact: It’s an approximate 365 acre parcel located south of the Grand Canal to Camelback Road; from 83rd Ave. to 91st Ave.
  • Fact: the original Stonehaven plan approved by the City Council in April of 2016 had 3 lot sizes:

                  5,500 SF (43% of the site area);

                  7,000 SF (36% of the site);

                  8,000 SF (21% of the site area)

  • Fact: the Stonehaven changes requested are:

           4,000 and 4,500 SF lots ( 44% of the site area);

           5,000 SF lots (22% of the site area);

           6.000 SF lots ( 18% of the site area);

           7,000 SF lots (16% of the site);

           8,000 SF lots are eliminated entirely

  • Fact: Bethany Home Road does not need to be completed until Jan. 1, 2021 per a separate agreement between the John F. Long Trust and the City of Glendale.
  • Fact: Even when Bethany Home Road is completed daily traffic trips on Camelback Road and 83rd Ave. will increase by 15,000 and daily traffic trips on 91st Ave. will increase by 11,000.
  • Fact: There will be 60 acres of park/open space that includes one 9.1 acre community Park. The balance of the 50 acres will be open space in the form of entry way landscaping; perimeter landscaping surrounding the project; street side landscaping; and a few pocket parks and trails that will serve as retention areas to prevent flooding.
  • Fact: The Pendergast Elementary School district has said it can accommodate the new students this project will produce. This project will produce an estimated 800 to 1,000 new students.
  • The two schools most affected are Sunset Ridge and Desert Mirage. The last bond issue by the school district has funds for expansion of Sunset Ridge (they may have to use some or all of the school’s 5 acre Park) but there are no funds to expand Desert Mirage and it is my understanding that portables have been used at Desert Mirage for many years.

Here is some information related to the number of single family residences (parcels) by lot size in the City of Glendale, from the most widely used lot size to the least used. There are ten different categories. This information was provided by the Planning Department in November of 2016 to a constituent who shared it with me. Please note: The Planning Department did not provide figures for R 1-5 lot sizes. (It is strange that this lot size was not included. One can reasonably assume there are somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 of the R 1-5 lot sizes).

Category      Number

RI-6             35,793

RI-7               5,279

RI-8               2,951

SR-17            1,643

RI-4               1,501

SR-12               877

A-1                   521

SR-30               516

RI-10                370

RR-90                   0

It appears that the total number of single family residential parcels in Glendale is 49,451. There are other types of residential housing not included in this list – multi-family (apartments, condos, town homes, etc.). These figures reflect single family parcel sizes only. Although these figures are a year and a half old, the basic ratios will remain consistent.

Please note there are 1,501 of the R 1-4 parcels throughout the entire city. That is .03% of all of the lot sizes currently in Glendale. Stonehaven proposes 616 lots (44% of the entire project) of R 1-4 (4,000 SF and 4,500 SF) within its new plan. If they reflected the .03% of the existent R 1-4 lot sizes within Glendale, Stonehaven’s proposed total of 1,392 homes would have only 42 of the R 1-4 lots. Instead they are proposing to increase the total number of R 1-4 in all of Glendale by almost 50%…all in one spot…Stonehaven.

It is important to note that the vast majority of lot sizes in Glendale are R 1-6 for a total of 35,793. I have noted in previous blogs the following facts:

  • Zip code 85310 within Glendale ranks 24th out of 25 of the wealthiest zip codes in the Phoenix Metro area
  • Glendale has the highest poverty rate in the Phoenix Metro area
  • Glendale has the second to the lowest median household income in the Phoenix Metro area

It is obvious from looking at the numbers above that Glendale lacks large lots with large homes needed to turn these startling numbers around. In other words, Glendale needs to Upgrade. The question that must be answered by the proponents of the changes to the 2016 approved Stonehaven plan is this, “with facts to support your assertion, how does Stonehaven Upgrade Glendale?”

Here’s an alternative proposal. Glendale’s zip code 85310 is one of the wealthiest 25 zip codes in the Valley. Let’s encourage another 85310 on this parcel. The yield would be an estimated 800 homes on 10,000 SF and 12,000 SF lots. It would go a long way toward upgrading Glendale’s image and desirability.

Rovey Farm Estates is comparable in size at 300 acres and contains about 800 homes. You won’t find a 4,000 SF, 4,500 SF, 5,000 SF or 6,000 SF lot within it. The smallest lot size is 7,000 SF. Here is a real life anecdote. Some friends bought a home on a 7,000 SF lot in Rovey Farm Estates during the depth of our recent recession. They paid about $180,000 for it. Their home was recently appraised for $380,000…nearly $400,000.

Stonehaven proponents say there is no market for large lots and large homes. They claim teeny lots with teeny homes create diversity and flexibility to meet current market demands. These are merely code words to justify the density they propose. They say these small lots will appeal to millennials and “empty-nesters.” Yet they persist in using 1970’s style planning by placing these, small, undesirable lots behind or adjacent to the commercial parcels within Stonehaven. Some homes will be as close as 50 feet away from the commercial parcels which consists of their concept of a “restaurant row” and a grocery store center. I hope these millennials and “empty-nesters” enjoy the smells of food cooking emanating from the restaurants and the sounds of delivery trucks at 4 AM at the back of the grocery store.

I can’t help but feel like the boy who said, “The emperor has no clothes.” His declaration released the constraints of others who dared not state the obvious. The John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes act as if they are doing Glendale a favor by making a $400 million dollar investment. The obvious and unstated is that they are in this project to make money and their $400 million dollar investment will repay them handsomely…and don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in the American ethic of profitability but not at the expense of an entire community.

It’s time for this city council to take a stand and send a strong message to the residential development community. That message is that we won’t settle. We deserve better. We are prepared to deny projects that do not contribute to raising Glendale residents’ median income levels and do nothing to reduce Glendale’s poverty rate. We are prepared to walk away from this deal. We are prepared to embrace projects that add real value to the community…and 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.

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.

There is an informal group of Yucca district residents who have been quietly working in opposition to the proposed Stonehaven amended residential plan known as GPA 17-01 and ZON 17-01. It is scheduled to be heard by the citizen Planning Commission on Thursday, May 18, 2017 – in less than 2 weeks. The applicants, the John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes are asking for an additional 300 homes to be added to the 2016 plan already approved the Glendale city council.

Volunteer Yucca district residents secured over 1,000 petition signatures in opposition to this new Stonehaven proposal. That is pretty impressive. They prepared copies of the signatures and turned them into the Planning Department so that they could be included in every Planning Commissioner’s packet as they consider whether to approve or deny this request.

Tom Traw, one of the members of this ad hoc citizen group wrote the following letter for submission with the petition copies for the Commissioners:

“Dear Commissioners:

“I am writing this letter as a spokesperson for the over 1,000 Yucca district residents who have signed petitions in opposition to Stonehaven GPA 17-01 and ZON 17-01. We oppose this proposed revision to the original Stonehaven plan approved in April of 2016 for the following reasons:

  • The proposed, revised plan is too dense. The applicants are seeking an additional 300 homes bringing the total number of lots to 1,406. As a contrast, Rovey Farm Estates located from Northern Avenue to Glendale Avenue, 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue is comparable. Rovey Farms Estates consists of 300+ acres. Stonehaven is also 300+ acres. Rovey Farms Estates has approximately 800 homes within its boundaries. Stonehaven proposes to nearly double the number of homes that one can find within Rovey Farm Estates.
  • The proposed, revised plan is not a balanced plan regarding lot sizes with the applicants asking for 45% of the project to be composed of 4,000 and 4,500 SF lot sizes. The rest of the plan contains a majority of lot sizes of 5,000 SF and comparably very few offered at 7,000 SF. By way of contrast, Rovey Farm Estates has a balanced plan with the smallest lot size of 7,000 SF (note this is the largest offering in Stonehaven) and a mix of R1-8, R1-10, SR-12 and SR-17. As a result, over time since its inception, Rovey Farm Estates homes have not only held their value but have risen in value.
  • The proposed plan will raise average daily traffic counts on 83rd Avenue, 91st Avenue and Camelback Road with or without a Bethany Home Road connection which, per the John F. Long Trust and City of Glendale Agreement, requires its completion by Jan. 1, 2021. The applicant does not have to submit a design plan for Bethany until the 200th building permit is pulled and does not have to start construction until the 475th building permit is pulled. See below for estimated traffic counts:

                Current* Stonehaven without Bethany   Stonehaven with Bethany

Camelback

83rd – 91st Aves                 25,561                    54,000                                       41,000

83rd Avenue

Camelback – Bethany     15,104                     33,000                                       27,000

91st Avenue

Camelback-Bethany        11,044                     28,000                                       23,000 

* Current  figures provided by the City of Glendale

** Stonehaven Figures with and without Bethany Home Rd.  provided by John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes at a neighborhood meeting 

Please note the traffic increase with a proposed subdivision of 1,406 homes and a completed Bethany Home Road connector:

Camelback will increase by 15,439 daily trips

83rd Avenue will increase by 15,105 daily trips

91st Avenue will increase by 7,044 daily trips

While some of this traffic increase is the result of continued West Valley growth, there is no doubt those 1,406 homes will, at a minimum, have one car per household and many households will have 2 or more vehicles. This subdivision will produce a substantial number of daily trips significantly impacting the 3 major arterials listed above.

  • The applicant’s offering of 3% park and open space is inadequate by Glendale’s standards. As Planning Commissioners you have reviewed and approved many residential projects. Typically the developer dedicates 10% to 15% of a project for park and open space. This plan offers approximately 9 acres. In a project of over 300 acres, 30 acres should have been dedicated for this purpose.
  • The national average number of K-8 children per household is 1.86. Based upon this factor 1,406 homes will yield an estimated 2,615 K-8 children. A conservative figure based upon 30 children per classroom means that the Pendergast Elementary School District will require an additional 87 classrooms. There will be significant pressure on the two nearest elementary schools, Desert Mirage located at 8606 W. Maryland Avenue and Sunset Ridge located at 8490 W. Missouri Avenue. In all reality, it is anticipated that a new elementary school would need to be constructed. Yet, we note that the Pendergast Elementary School District has not indicated that this project will put pressure to build another elementary school. It is our understanding that the district has not objected to this proposed increase in density within Stonehaven. Recently we learned that typically a developer will donate a $1,000 per home constructed to the affected district. With the prospective of receiving $140,000 from the developer, it is not surprising that there would be no objection.

“Glendale had an opportunity to insure that one of the last, large prime vacant parcels of land in the Yucca district would enhance our community. Sadly that did not occur. The applicants’ latest request to increase the density of the project and to downsize the lot sizes does a disservice to our community and quite frankly insults the image of Glendale as a premier city in which to live, work and play.

“We respectfully ask that you deny the applicants’ request. We ask that you not be intimidated by their threat of abandoning this project. Pulte follows in the footsteps of two previous homebuilders, Fulton and Mattamay, all asking for more density than is prudent or desirable for this prime parcel. They were denied as Pulte should be as well.

“On behalf of the 1,008 Yucca district residents who signed our petition and the dozens of residents who took the time to walk our neighborhoods, we ask you to hear our voices and to represent us on this issue.

Respectfully,

Tom Traw”

You still have an opportunity to express your opinion on Stonehaven to the Planning Commissioners for their consideration. The deadline to send your email to the Planning Department is Monday morning, May 8, 2017. You still have time to email today or tomorrow. After you read this, please take a few moments to send your email to: dfigueroa@glendaleaz.com  . She is the Planning Department secretary and will make copies of your email for each Commissioner. The subject is Stonehaven. Request that she make copies of your email for each Planning Commissioner.

As the elected representative of the Yucca district and the residents who have made it very clear that they oppose this plan, it is my obligation and responsibility to be their voice and to represent them when the issue is brought before the city council for a final decision.

Join the 1,000 people who signed petitions in opposition to the new Stonehaven plan. Make your voice heard. It’s time to become an army.

© 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.

%d bloggers like this: