I am a resident of the adjacent community Union Foothills, and live less than a half mile from the proposed development. I object to the rezoning of the Happy Valley and Central Roads area, as it changes the dynamic of the existing neighborhood that's been established to adhere to the less dense zoning for that area. Allowing a variance to increase the density will injure the residents (like myself) of the area who've built here specifically for the uniquely rural zoning requirements.

I'm a member of the Deer Valley Village and we approved this case 11-1. I'm in full support of this case.

I’m part of the village that approved this case 11/1 and the commission approved this case 6/1, please approved this case. Thank you

Please do not approve this project. This project in it's current form does not fit with this area at all, nor has due diligence been exercised for density, traffic, and drainage. We all welcome new neighbors, but this development is not well thought out, nor does it fit with the current community to the north, that it will greatly affect.

I am opposed at this time because the developer has not paid sufficient attention to public access to the Sonoran Preserve. The parcel abuts the Preserve, in which the City of Phoenix has invested heavily in testimony to citizens' desires to keep the Preserve safe for recreation and wildlife. The City's own Edge Treatment Guidelines state that public access must be maintained and handled appropriately. The developer has not done so, providing only lip-service to this requirement.

I request that the City Council not approve this development as submitted. This proposed development has been and is incompatible land use with the area, and is the very description of speculative spot zoning. Our community has proposed a compatible land-use development plan that is a true compromise, and satisfies the Planning Department’s staff recommendation for Parcel One (1) to be zoned with R1-18/R1-10 density, which has been presented to the Applicant/Developer.

Please don't approve this as proposed. I own property just one acre north of this proposed development. The density is too high and not at all compatible with the adjacent homes, and there isn't a sufficient buffer. There are also water flow and traffic issues that haven't been adequately addressed.

I, as a member of the Central Foothills Concerned Citizens, (CFCC), request that the City Council Not approve this development as submitted. This proposed development has been and is incompatible land use with the area, and is the very description of speculative spot zoning. The CFCC community has proposed a compatible land-use development plan that is a true compromise, and satisfies the Planning Department's staff recommendation for Parcel One(1) to be zoned with R1-18/R1-10.

Please apply my time to Heather Lennon

As a member of the Central Foothills Concerned Citizens and an area resident, I request that City Council deny approval of this development. The proposed development is inconsistent with density and uses relative to surrounding developments and land uses, especially ones that abut a large nature preserve. Furthermore, any approved PUD should only included land associated with the immediate residential development (parcel 1) and should NOT include land designated as future commercial (parcel 2).

I request that the City Council not approve this development as submitted. This proposed development has been and is incompatible land use with the area, and is the very description of speculative spot zoning. The CFCC community has proposed a compatible land-use development plan that is a true compromise, and satisfies the Planning Department’s staff recommendation for Parcel One (1) to be zoned with R1-18/R1-10 density, which has been presented to the Applicant/Developer.

As a commercial property owner in the area and resident of the adjoining neighborhood I am opposed to the PUD as submitted. I would like to see this item continued for 30 days giving more time for the residents to work with the applicant towards an equitable compromise.

I am giving my two minutes to Heather Lennon.

Until the flow analysis is completed and the drainage around the Riprap cap is reviewed, I recommend delaying this action till it is complete.

I live in this Neighborhood and would like to request a continuance to this project while we try to work with the developer on our differences.
Thank You.

I request that the City Council not approve this development as submitted. This proposed development has been and is incompatible land use with the area, and is the very description of speculative spot zoning. Our community has proposed a compatible land-use development plan that is a true compromise, and satisfies the Planning Department’s staff recommendation for Parcel One (1) to be zoned with R1-18/R1-10 density, which has been presented to the Applicant/Developer.

Request to rezone is premature.
How does the developer know that this number of homes can safely be put on the property with these water flows, per their own Preliminary Drainage Report showing water flow over 640 cubic feet per second?
Does the developer commit to taking out homes in their plan that are the path of water?
This would address the water flow issues and solve for the neighbors density concerns.
Please postpone or oppose until a new layout with water flows is completed. Thank U

I want to request a continuance of 30 days so discussions between the applicant and local residents can continue toward more agreement.