Surprise leaders: Not the time for high-density housing

Surprise sent a clear message to developers looking to construct high-density residential units in the city this week: not this, not here, not now.

A proposal by EcoVista Development LLC to rezone about 43 acres of vacant land could have paved the way for a 475unit townhome complex and commercial center on the northeast corner of 163rd Avenue and Jomax Road.

The project, referred to as Desert Arroyo Rezone, met with vocal opposition from residents during Monday’s council meeting, and comes amid ongoing traffic woes as infrastructure and road development hasn’t quite kept up with the city’s continued growth.

Surprise’s population has grown by about 7.7% since the 2020 Census. That growth has undoubtedly contributed to increased traffic along U.S. 60, between Loop 303 and 163rd, which saw a nearly 32% jump in average annual daily traffic from 2017 to 2022.

Agreeing strongly with their constituents, Surprise councilmembers voted unanimously to reject the controversial proposal. It also upheld the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation for denial despite the developer offering a series of self-imposed stipulations, including a $1.6 million commitment to the city.

“Right now, the timing for this project is just not right,” Vice Mayor Nick Haney said.

Echoing the slate of residents who balked at the project, Haney expressed concerns that it would add more drivers to an area already plagued with congestion — a major issue he vowed to address when campaigning for office.

Other councilmembers objected to the promised funds, equating it to a desperation move.

While city leaders and residents opposed the project, the city had collected 220 letters in support of the development.

The letters all contained the same language, advocating for the project because “our area is in desperate need of neighborhood commercial to serve the community.”

“By providing commercial opportunities at 163rd and Jomax means fewer residents have to travel to Grand Avenue for goods and services, which ultimately means potentially less traffic at the intersection of 163rd and Grand,” the letters stated.

What was EcoVista proposing?

For about the past year, EcoVista sought to rezone a portion of the undeveloped desert area as “residential highdensity” to build the 475 townhomes — roughly 18 units per acre. It planned to use other sections of the land zoned as “community commercial” for retail and office space.

EcoVista held an outreach meeting in September to discuss the project with the community. About 30 people attended, with many of them voicing their opposition. Their concerns centered on traffic congestion, water supply, light pollution and wildlife impacts.

Responding to questions and concerns, EcoVista noted that the complex would be maintained as a high-end luxury community. The units would be two stories with private garages.

The project, EcoVista added, would have also helped the city meet its need

for market-rate housing and keep up with anticipated growth in the coming years.

The county is projecting Surprise’s population to grow by more than 51% in 2030.

As for the traffic, the developer acknowledged 163rd Avenue as an arterial road that gets backed up. The project’s commercial aspect would have helped to relieve that congestion, EcoVista had claimed.

Citing its traffic impact analysis, EcoVista said adding retail and office space would have given residents more options for shopping and work, thereby diverting that traffic from the 163rd and Grand intersection.

What did the Planning and Zoning Commission say?

When the project went before the city’s planning commissioners last month, it still wasn’t perceived favorably.

Like the council, the commission was also worried about the development’s timing related to the planned and proposed road improvement projects meant to ease traffic around 163rd and Grand avenues.

In December, the Arizona Department of Transportation completed short-term fixes like adding a third westbound lane along U.S. 60 between 163rd and Loop 303, and a second right turn lane for westbound travelers switching to 163rd from Grand.

More short-term improvements are in the pipeline, while some long-term solutions are contingent on whether voters approve Proposition 479 — the proposal to extend the half-cent countywide sales tax for transportation projects. Commissioners in February supported the commercial aspect of the project, but ultimately, they said the timing wasn’t right for additional highdensity housing in the area.

That feeling stemmed from questions on how emergency response times would be affected. There was also a concern that the residential side of the development would be completed before the commercial components.

The commission voted, 5-1, with one abstention. to recommend the council deny the project.

How did Surprise leaders feel?

At Monday’s meeting, Seth Jardine,

EcoVista’s manager, outlined some stipulations the developer was willing to impose on the project to address the community's and commission's concerns.

One would have dropped the multifamily density from 17.7 units per acre to 12, reducing the total number of proposed units from 475 to 320.

Another provision would have delayed the second phase of the residential portion until 50,000 square feet of the commercial property was built.

Jardine also said EcoVista would charge a $5,000 permit fee on each unit, raising about $1.6 million. Those funds, he said, would be given to the city.

“That could go into the general fund, to be used for potentially whatever you decided but also potential traffic improvements,” he said. “We’re trying to be a team player out in the area, a team player as a developer, and so we want to be part of the solution in regards to traffic in the area.”

About a few dozen people attending Monday’s meeting opposed the project, with 10 voicing their thoughts to the council. Many scoffed at Jardine’s provisions and questioned whether the $1.6 million commitment could be considered a bribe. Councilmember Patrick Duffy agreed with the sentiment, calling the committed funds “shady.”

For Councilmember Jack Hastings, that cash promise was a “Hail Mary” for the developer. He added that he wanted nothing to do with the money.

Councilmember Ken Remley had his own inquiry: Why are these changes being proposed now?

“You knew you had strong opposition to this project, and you knew you probably had a Planning and Zoning Commission that was probably going to go the same way,” Remley said. “So, when you saw that, I don’t understand why you didn’t pull back your proposal and come up with these stipulations, so you didn’t waste two hours of City Council time.” Responding, Jardine said he believed the project was “great for your city,” but didn’t know how the planning meeting would play out.

“I, proactively as a developer, went back to the drawing board to see what could I do to make things more palatable,” he said, adding, “All of those stipulations that I’ve done, I’ve done proactively to try to make this a workable solution for your city.”

With the consensus that the development came at an inopportune time for the city, the council voted unanimously to reject the proposed rezone.