In Surprise, both sides desire meetings on Mattamy

By Richard Smith, Independent Newsmedia

Proponents of the proposed Mattamy Homes community in downtown Surprise including detached, single-family homes, and the four members of the City Council that voted the project down June 6 agree on the need to have face-to-face discussions soon.

Mayor Sharon Wolcott was the loudest voice in galvanizing resident turnout to speak against the plan and gave the most thorough rationale for opposing it of the four councilors who voted against it. During the June 20 council meeting she said she reached out to property owner Surprise Center Development Company and hopes for a meeting with SCDC and the council before it takes its July break.

“We are not giving up on Mattamy. Mattamy is not giving up on their project,” said Rick West, Chairman of Carefree Partners Investments, L.L.C., which operates SCDC.

Mr. West said he and Carefree Partners vice president Scott Phillips will be happy to meet with the council. Mattamy officials, city staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Other than the desire to meet, however, neither side of this philosophical divide over the project and the vision for the downtown appears to have budged much in the last two weeks. There is not even a consensus on the definition of minor or major.

Entering the June 6 meeting, SCDC and Mattamy were confident council would pass the preliminary plat on the 56-acre project, Mr. West said. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the play in a 7-0 vote May 20.

“We thought were on strong ground. We have no idea what the legal basis was for denial. We were shocked,” Mr. West said.

Councilmen Jim Hayden, Ken Remley and Todd Tande joined the mayor in voting against the project.

The mayor said she believed inadequate information was provided to the planning commission, and that she was taken aback that the project reached planning and zoning without having a large public meeting that included all parties involved. She said due to state open meetings laws, she is not free to sit down and hash out the council’s opinions on this matter outside of a formal meeting.

“Asking me to speak where the disconnect happened, I don’t know. I only spoke to two other (council?) people on this and I was against this to start and I remained so,” Ms. Wolcott said.
She thinks the series of discussions on the project and downtown vision would be good because of staff turnover and new residents.

Mr. Remley also said he wants to see public meetings about the project and downtown.

“I think everyone from top to bottom has complained about communication,” Mr. Remley said.
He also believes the proposed minor amendment to the PAD to allow detached, single-family homes should be a major amendment, which would require a public meeting.

A planned area development submitted by city staff in September 2000 was never adopted. But the city and SCDC worked with this document as the downtown PAD for 15 years.

A revised ordinance passed in January 2001 was discovered in December 2016, just before the Mattamy project went to the planning commission. That ordinance prohibits single-family residential development and requires 10 housing units per acre. Mr. West said he does not dispute the validity of this document.

Based on its market studies, Mattamy did not believe a community of duplexes and multi-level housing was viable at this time. That prompted the minor amendment allowing for detached single-family homes and a reduction to 7.4 housing units per acre on Mattamy’s site — which would be combined with a more dense project to the immediate east to arrive at 10 units per acre.

In planning terms, changes constitute a minor amendment when they reduce the impact on the infrastructure, Mr. Phillips said.

“That’s not a major amendment because you’re reducing the intensity of the development,” he said. “That encompasses the theory behind it. That’s more of a planning concept.”

Mr. Phillips said Mattamy’s myriad focus groups showed limited to no demand for a more densely-packed product and that people want more of a yard for Mattamy’s price point.
He said 7.4 units per acre is still considerably more dense than typical single-family developments surrounding the city center.

“When Mattamy started the process, they had more density on the site,” Mr. Phillips said.

The mayor said she considers the downtown Surprise’s urban core, and has never seen an argument that an urban environment needed single-family detached residential to stimulate future, denser development.

She said she saw Mattamy’s Rhythm development in Chandler/Tempe and it is impressive — with condos and lofts included. She asked the developer to do one more focus group this spring and Mattamy chose to expand its target area to around Westgate in Glendale.

“I’ve red the report and I find it flawed,” Ms. Wolcott said. “ I find it amusing that they would go to a place with a price point of $200,000 and the Cardinals, shopping and Dave and Busters. None of those people would be convinced to go to an area of bare dirt.”

Another point of contention is the downtown master plan. Ms. Wolcott said she does not consider the outline shown at the council meeting a true master plan. Mr. West said SCDC came up with rudiments of master plan and met with the council on it.

The mayor said developers have approached her about the civic center, but she is not striking out on her own looking for projects.

Meanwhile on projects proposed for the downtown and amendments to proposals, most of the discussion is between SCDC and city staff.

“Our relationship with staff, I believe, is excellent. I believe the staff Surprise has in place is the best in 20 years,” Mr. West said.

Councilmen Skip Hall, John Williams and Roland Winters voted in favor of the project, but have different ideas of what will happen next.

Mr. Hall admitted that in the wake of the no vote, he does not have the best attitude about the potential for a compromise. He said he believes Mattamy will take their project elsewhere and that the momentum from adding restaurants and medical offices to the area is lost.

He said he cannot remember the City Council voting in the opposite direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission in his more than a decade total spent on both bodies.

“It’s a good project and we just screwed it up,” Mr. Hall said. “I don’t hold out a lot of hope.”

Mr. Williams also was on the losing side of the vote, but said he came out of the contentious council meeting with hope. He said it was the first time this conversation had taken place with all the key city and developer prersonnel in the same room in 10 years.

The key now, Mr. Williams said is not to let past bitterness, slights and lawsuits affect either side. Instead it is to figure out what is best for that area moving forward.

He said voted in favor of the project because it is more dense and more walkable than a typical single-family housing development, and includes duplexes and theincentives for a more vertical phase later.

“I felt in doing my due diligence that it was high density (enough) for me,” Mr. Williams said. “For me it was close enough. (Someone) could move there and not have to use a car.”

Both Williams and Hall pointed out the downtown area has plenty of undeveloped property available beyond what is needed for an entertainment destination. Mr. Hall said up to 300 of the 420 remaining acres downtown is likely to be some kind of residential property, with the offerings getting more dense after Mattamy.

As Mr. Phillips pointed out, the lauded Kierland Commons development in Scottsdale is 35 acres and the downtown Gilbert entertainment district is 25 acres. He said the plan for Surprise is an entertainment district of 30-35 acres.

Ms. Wolcott said she has championed urban living downtown, but the area — and city in general — needs office space, high wage jobs, shopping and entertainment.

The language prohibiting single-family detached homes in PAD is a bold statement, she said, and makes any inclusion of that housing a major amendment.

She said she has made her displeasure with three drive-thru restaurants — even though they are name brands In-and-Out Burger, Stabucks and Raising Canes — on the Bell Road side of downtown well known. But that type of business is not prohibited by the PAD.

“In my world intent means a lot and you pay attention to that,” Ms. Wolcott said.