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.

There is a 4.58 acre property located at 5136 N. 83rd Avenue. For years the family raised Mastiffs. The parents are elderly now and the daughter is selling the property. So far, that sounds OK and it is but not at the expense of their neighbors and the surrounding area.

Jon Froke was the city’s planning director for many years and back in the day, he assisted in

Georgia Avenue

preserving the 83rd Avenue corridor for large, residential lot development. Now, he owns Froke Urban Planning, LLC. and is representing the property owners of this acreage. Apparently, preserving the 83rd Ave. corridor for large lot development is no longer on his agenda. This is the only area in west Glendale where prospective owners can find lots that are 8,000 SF, 10,000 SF, a half-acre, an acre or even larger.

Mr. Froke, representing the property owners, is seeking a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR2.5) to High Density Residential 20 (HDR 20, 20 units to the acre) and a Rezoning from Suburban Residence (SR-17) to Multifamily Residence (R-3). At the nationally recognized average 2.3 persons per unit that adds another 161 residents. In terms of traffic that could add about 300 trips (coming and going) per day. It will certainly impact traffic in this area.

It should also be noted that these large  residential properties are selling for a minimum of $600,000 to over a million dollars. Many of these properties are irrigated and the SRP yearly cost to water many of them is $200.00. Almost all have horse privileges.

This proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding area. The only necessary buffer is an 8 Ft. wall on the south side of the 4.5 acre property with heavy landscaping.

Montebello Ave

On both the northeast corner and the northwest corner of 83rd Ave. and Camelback Road there is commercial. On the northeast corner there is a small commercial center that includes a convenience store/gas station and an Arby’s, among others. On the northwest corner is Dignity Emergency Center and an EOS Fitness Center. The property owner and Mr. Froke claim the 70 town houses will be a buffer for the existent large lot properties to the north and west of this property. But wait a minute, there is no buffer between the commercial on the northeast corner and the acre properties abutting to the north side and east side of the commercial parcel. They have co-existed for 20 years or better without an issue.

So the claim that the 70 town houses are needed as a buffer for adjacent large properties to the north and west is not historically supported by existent development.

To give you a sense of what the area contains here is a map of the area:

As you can see there is a sea of green (SR-17) surrounding both commercial corners. The yellow portions are R 1-8 (8,000 SF lots); the cream portions are R 1-10 (10,000 SF lots). The gold portions are around 75th Avenue and are typical R 1-6 (6,000 SF lots). The red, purple and light blue portions on the corners of 83rd Avenue and Camelback Road are General Office, Commercial or Planned Area Development (PAD) and are lighter commercial.

If you live in this area, along 83rd Avenue, please check my Facebook page, Joyce Clark, as I

Missouri Estates

plan to call a meeting in the very near future of any residents who oppose this high density proposal. Action will be required by citizens to let the Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Council know that this is not compatible with the residential properties in this area.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

The City of Tempe has still not announced a decision on the Coyotes’ response to their RFP. First they announced they would do so at the end of December, 2021. Then it moved to the end of January, 2022. Now, it’s crickets. To refresh your memory, in July, 2021, the city issued an RFP for “a mixed-use project incorporating a professional sports franchise and entertainment district for two parcels of city-owned land totaling 46 acres at the northeast corner of Priest Drive and Rio Salado Parkway.” The Coyotes, as Bluebird Development, were the only entity to submit a bid on September 3, 2021.

The Coyotes want to build a $1.7 billion development with a 16,000-seat arena, hotels, apartments and shops on 46 acres near Priest Drive and Rio Salado Parkway that the team said would be financed by private investors. The team wants to use a portion of city sales tax revenues generated on the site to help pay for $20 million in infrastructure and other costs to get the site shovel ready.

One obstacle to the proposal has been Sky Harbor Airport. It is concerned, as it should be, that this development will be 460 feet away from the end of one of the runways. It is also concerned about the height of the proposed apartment complexes and the arena itself as well as the intrusive lighting that has the potential to disrupt pilots.

Tempe is having an election to select 3 councilmembers who would be sworn in July of 2022. The city’s Primary Election is March 8, 2022. Usually, but not always, the Primary Election produces the winners as 50% plus 1 vote is all that is needed to have won the Primary. If the winners are not selected in the Primary, there will be a General Election on May 17, 2022.

At a January, 2022, Tempe candidate forum all candidates were asked to respond to the Coyotes’ RFP. They were asked whether they supported the plan and what it would take to get their support for the deal. This is the link to that forum: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tempe-election-council-candidates-sound-off-on-coyotes-arena-deal-2020-election-at-republic-forum/ar-AASLpx2 . Apparently all are very good tap dancers for they certainly danced around this issue. It really is pretty simple. Either they support giving $20 million taxpayer dollars to a sports owner or they do not. That is acknowledged as part of the deal. Not much in-depth research is required on this deal point. Here are their responses:

John Skelton: A former Arizona Cardinals quarterback who operates an in-home senior care center in the East Valley, Skelton said the NHL team’s proposal appeared to be a “good deal” for Tempe, especially as that land isn’t currently generating revenue for the city. A development of that size could cause traffic issues and he said if elected he would want to look at what the city can do to alleviate congestion around the project.

Casey Clowes: An attorney and community advocate whose work focuses on environmental and social equity causes, Clowes said she grew up playing hockey and attending Coyotes games. If elected, she would look at the benefits and drawbacks of developing an arena as opposed to another type of development on that land. One deal point she would drill down on would be any financial incentives like property tax subsidies offered to the team, which she doesn’t support. She would also encourage the team to prioritize hiring Tempe residents, hiring companies that offer fair wages and hiring companies that use apprenticeship programs during construction.

Gina Kash: The project could help draw money for local businesses and she would support the arena, said Kash, a former top-level Republican caucus staffer at the Arizona House of Representatives where she started in 1998. She wants to see local businesses prioritized in the project and would want to have discussions with residents on whether tax dollars should be used in the deal.

Harper Lines: A member of the Tempe Arts and Culture Commission who oversees community engagement at the University of Phoenix, Lines said the city needs to weigh potential job opportunities and economic development benefits of an arena against transportation issues it could cause. The city also needs to consider the team’s rocky relationship with Glendale and reports of late rent and other payments to Glendale so that the city isn’t saddled with debt if it enters into a deal with the Coyotes.

Jennifer Adams: The only sitting council member candidate running who was first elected in 2018 said she is currently involved in negotiations and couldn’t comment on the question but that she “evaluates everything very carefully” to see if a deal is a right fit for Tempe.

Arlene Chin: Appointed by the council to fill a vacancy on the dais from May 2019 to July 2020, Chin, who works for the ASU Foundation and is active in city commissions and nonprofit boards, said overall she is supportive of bringing more investment to Tempe and of projects that could bring jobs and business development but it has to pencil out financially for the city. She raised concerns about the infrastructure needs to support such a large project, potential burdens it could put on city systems and the cost of moving a city operations yard that is on the site that would have to be moved before construction.

Berdetta Hodge: Hodge, who has long been involved in the local community, said she would support the project if it’s the right fit for Tempe. She is optimistic that a project of this magnitude could bring more jobs and commerce to the city but would want to make sure that traffic issues and neighborhood impacts are addressed. She wants the team to prioritize working with union contractors that provide prevailing wages, create partnerships with community groups and schools to provide opportunities for residents and support parks and neighborhoods. She wouldn’t support city funding for the project and said Tempe residents shouldn’t be taxed for it.

Current speculation is that there are 2 councilmembers who support the deal; 2 councilmembers who oppose the deal; and the rest are undecided.

Here’s my take. I have no insider knowledge and what I offer is pure speculation. While everyone waits for the RFP outcome, political leaders have realized that making a decision prior to the Primary Election on March 8th is not in their best interests. If those who are elected appear to support the deal, they will be comfortable in announcing the RFP’s acceptance. Obviously, the reverse is true as well. Depending on the results of the Primary Election, don’t expect Tempe to do anything until the candidate winners are announced.

You can be sure the Coyotes are putting substantial sums into the campaigns of those who support their RFP. I checked all candidates’ campaign filings of January 31st and there is nothing outstanding with regard to their campaign contributions. That is to be expected. Their next campaign filings will reveal who received money from whom.

However, money can only do so much. There are well organized groups of citizens who oppose this deal as well as the Council’s possible decision to give $20 million in taxpayer dollars to support a sports franchise. This has garnered the attention of the Coyotes who have called upon fans to start an email campaign and petitions in support of the Coyotes. The battle lines have been drawn. Let’s see who becomes the victor.

On a totally separate note and kind of related is the Coyotes/ASU deal that allows the Coyotes to play in a college facility for at least the next 3 years. I suspect all the owners within the NHL are spittin’ mad. The Coyotes’ owner is already financially subsidized in a league revenue sharing scheme. With even less revenue generated in this small facility, the other owners will take it on the chin by having to share even more revenue with the Coyotes. They cannot be happy at this prospect.

Bettman is also allowing the Coyotes to play in a 5,000-seat facility. The actual attendance will be even less than that as seats will be consumed for press and production uses. Yet when others sought temporary, smaller facility usage, historically they have been denied by Bettman. Why the discrimination in this case? I suspect Bettman will do anything to save face when he made his absolute declaration that hockey would stay in Arizona as well as his commitment to the southwest media market.

I wonder if Bettman and Daley have make the trek to Tempe to chat up councilmembers in an effort to shore up support for a positive decision on the Coyotes’ proposal?

My final observation is that I am pleased the City of Glendale made the decision to sever ties with the Coyotes. Their history of ownership has been filled with unpleasant drama and financial issues. Hey, Tempe Councilmembers, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Consider your RFP just the first chapter in your possible, drama-filled relationship with the team. It won’t be your last.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

Tuesday afternoon, February 8, 2022, I received word that HB 2476 had been pulled from consideration by the House Commerce Committee by one of its sponsors, Representative Cesar Chavez. I think it is safe to say the bill is dead and buried.

I want to thank all who responded by emailing or calling Representatives. You did you job and your actions worked. This was an example of true democracy working. Again, thanks to all who made their voice heard.

Here is Representative Chavez’ press release on the matter:

An update on the horrible HB2674

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 7, 2022
Posted in City of Glendale  | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

Yesterday I posted a blog on the newly submitted HB2674. This bill would take away all cities and towns abilities to decide where and how multifamily is developed in a community. It will most certainly affect your property values, no matter where you live. Today the League of Cities and Towns issued this alert. It sums up the effects of the bill and offers a list of the Legislature’s Commerce Committee — all of whom should be contacted to express your disapproval of this bill. Please take a few minutes to contact these representatives.

 

HB2674 Municipal Zoning; By Right Housing

House Bill 2674 municipal zoning; by right housing, sponsored by Representative Steve Kaiser (R-Phoenix) and Representative Cesar Chavez (D-Phoenix) is scheduled for a hearing in the House Commerce Committee Tuesday, February 8 at 2 p.m. This bill will impact all municipalities across the state regardless of whether your community is rural or urban, large, or small.

THIS LEGISLATION IS THE MOST AGGRESSIVE AND RESTRICTIVE ZONING MEASURE EVER SEEN IN ARIZONA AND POTENTIALLY ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

Please sign in opposed to the bill using the legislature’s RTS system.

Please also reach out to all members on the House Commerce Committee and request they vote NO on HB2674:

Chairman Jeff Weninger
jweninger@azleg.gov
(602) 926-3092

Vice-Chairman Joseph Chaplik
jchaplik@azleg.gov
(602) 926-3436

Rep. Neal Carter
ncarter@azleg.gov
(602) 926-5761

Rep. Cesar Chavez
cchavez@azleg.gov
(602) 926-4862

Rep. David Cook
dcook@azleg.gov
(602) 926-5162

Rep. Diego Espinoza
despinoza@azleg.gov
(602) 926-3134

Rep. Steve Kaiser
skaiser@azleg.gov
(602) 926-3314

Rep. Sarah Liguori
sliguori@azleg.gov
(602) 926-3300

Rep. Robert Meza
rmeza@azleg.gov
(602) 926-3425

Rep. Justin Wilmeth
jwilmeth@azleg.gov
(602) 926-5044

The bill establishes “by right housing” rights with zero obligation to make the units affordable. For example, multifamily developments would be allowed “by right” in any existing agricultural district, single-family residential district, commercial districts, and all districts supporting single-family dwellings, commercial uses, or mixed uses in the general plan. This could include multifamily buildings up to 75 feet in some areas. Single-family and two-family units would be allowed “by right” anywhere except industrial lots.

Additionally, eight single-family structures per acre and 12 two-family structures per acre would be allowed “by right” on all agricultural and single-family lots. Multifamily developers could ignore zoning districts, zoning codes, design standards, and adopted building codes. Multifamily projects would be approved administratively with no public process. Residents would have zero notice and no opportunity to learn about the project or provide comments. No rezoning or general plan amendment would be required. The bill would also remove planning commissions from the process and strip local councils of their zoning authority.

HB2674 will have the following negative and generational impacts on development in our state in the following ways:

  • eliminate single-family zoning in Arizona.
     
  • preempt municipalities and charter cities in all housing matters.
    violate voter-approved general plans, the general plan statute, and the Voter Protections Act.
     
  • eliminate the citizen review process for residential and multifamily developments.
     
  • prohibit all zoning district regulations that restrict housing.
     
  • provide residential developers special treatment and the right to ignore local requirements such as setbacks, maximum heights, and requirements regarding building materials, exteriors, roofs, patios, garages, landscaping, common areas, open space, parking, and architectural elements. 
     
  • prohibit any lot coverage maximums and side setback requirements greater than five feet on single family lots
     
  • prohibit planning commissions from reviewing housing projects, getting community input, and provide recommendations to local councils.
     
  • override all locally adopted residential building codes. As a result, municipalities would be required to follow generic national building codes that do not apply to the locality’s needs and geotechnical conditions.
     
  • disrupt state or municipal economic development plans by converting commercial zoned property for economic development for by-right housing without regard for the carefully coordinated economic development plans.

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.

If you remember I authored several blogs on the Biden administration’s efforts to mandate more affordable housing throughout the country. I said that the Feds under the Biden Administration have espoused major zoning changes encouraging more dense housing and the construction of more affordable apartments complexes everywhere. A bill currently before the Arizona State Legislature is HB 2674 Municipal Zoning: By Right Housing is designed to accomplish these objectives and I guarantee you won’t like it, if it is passed. I will summarize the worst parts of this bill but if you want to read it, please go to this link: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/hb2674p.pdf .

Cities and towns have always had their own local building requirements. In Glendale, a developer must submit an application and is required to meet all of Glendale’s General Plan requirements as well as to hold at least one neighborhood meeting. The proposed residential project must receive approval from our Planning Commission and City Council. It then must go through final design review and receive approval from our city’s Development Department to ensure that it meets Glendale’s specific standards including design elements, the height, the density of the project and specific, mandated setbacks. The city’s General Plan is its blueprint for where our community wants to see different kinds of residential and commercial development.

All of this will be gone…legislatively, in one single bill introduced this week at the legislature. This bill removes ALL authority from cities and towns to regulate and direct where single family and multifamily residential can be placed in our city.

I am listing some of the worst provisions of this bill.

“L. IN EXERCISING ITS DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, A MUNICIPALITY SHALL ENSURE THAT IT PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY BY COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 9-462.09.” In other words, an adequate supply of housing (which is very subjective) in real speak means affordable housing.

The bill goes on to say, “HOUSING SUPPLY AND AFFORDABILITY ARE MATTERS OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. ALL LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES AND CHARTER PROVISIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO, INCONSISTENT WITH OR MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THIS SECTION ARE PREEMPTED, AND A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT BY LAW, ORDINANCE OR CHARTER PROVISION REGULATE, RESTRICT OR LIMIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING, RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS…” This means all cities’ laws more restrictive than what is in this bill are preempted by the state legislature and cannot be used.

“NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, INCLUDING ANY ORDINANCE OR CHARTER PROVISION, ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2023, A MUNICIPALITY SHALL ALLOW THE FOLLOWING BY RIGHT:

  1. ON ANY LAND LOCATED IN ANY EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR ON ANY LAND DESIGNATED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S MOST RECENT GENERAL PLAN AS SUPPORTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OR TWELVE TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.” For example, I live on a street of 30 custom built homes, each on an irrigated acre. Under this bill my neighbor could sell his land to a developer that could put 8 single family homes or 12 two-family units on that acre. Is there a vacant parcel of land that is an acre or more in your neighborhood? That land could have the same fate. There goes your property values.

“2. IN ANY EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR ANY LAND DESIGNATED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S MOST RECENT GENERAL PLAN AS SUPPORTING MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

      (a) THE GREATER OF THE HIGHEST ALLOWED HEIGHT FOR THE SITE OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THE HIGHEST ALLOWED HEIGHT FOR A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR FIFTY-FIVE FEET. IF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF A RAIL STOP, BUS STOP, FREEWAY OR MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION MAY NOT BE LESS THAN SEVENTY-FIVE FEET.

     (b) THE DENSITY LIMIT APPLICABLE TO THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE THE GREATEST ALLOWED DENSITY FOR A MIXED USE OR RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE OF THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, OR, IF THERE IS NOT A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE, THE NEAREST MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

     (c) THE MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT REQUIRE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, USE PERMIT OR REVIEW BY A BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR AN APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT BY RIGHT HOUSING PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.” To add insult to injury, these dense apartment units can be 55’ or 75’ feet tall. Most homes are 30’ feet in height or less. A city will no longer have the right to regulate height or density. Projects will be exempt from review by the Planning Commission.

“A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE, CODE, STANDARD, REGULATION, GUIDELINE, AGREEMENT, STIPULATION OR OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING A ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 9-462.01, RELATED TO OR REGULATING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DESIGN ELEMENTS. A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT WITHHOLD A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER APPROVAL NECESSARY AS A CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY ORDINANCE, CODE, STANDARD, REGULATION, GUIDELINE, STIPULATION OR OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING A ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 9-462.01, RELATED TO OR REGULATING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DESIGN ELEMENTS.” This provision prevents a city from imposing any kind of design standard on these multifamily complexes. It mandates that a city cannot withhold approval or stop such a project.

There is more but I think you get the idea. This bill would be disastrous for every community within the State of Arizona. Just imagine a 55’ to 75” tall apartment complex with 5 feet between it and another property, along with no design regulations…in Strawberry, Prescott, or Paradise Valley.

What can we do about it? KILL THE BILL. This bill, if passed, will do irreparable harm to your city.I beg you to contact your state legislators and let them know you do not support this bill. Numbers do work. If a lot of constituents (you) email Representatives, they have no choice but to listen. I am providing a list of Glendale’s legislators in the House of Representatives because that it where the bill was introduced. Let them know by using their email addresses, in no uncertain terms that you do not support HB 2674. Here is the list for Glendale:

If you do not live in Glendale, here is the link to the entire list of Arizona state legislators and their email addresses: https://www.azleg.gov/memberroster/ .This bill is a disaster for every single community in the state. We must, in no uncertain terms, let our legislators know that we do not want or support this intrusive bill.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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: