Goodyear approves 468-unit El Cedro Ranch mixed-use rezoning with design stipulations
GOODYEAR, ARIZONA — August 15, 2024

Goodyear approves 468-unit El Cedro Ranch mixed-use rezoning with design stipulations

Planning Commission approved El Cedro Pad 9th Amendment rezoning for 468-unit mixed-use development adjacent to Loop 303 with negotiated design stipulations addressing multifamily height and compatibility concerns, and separately approved zoning ordinance streamlining to permit gas stations administratively rather than through use permit process.

Planning Commission Approves El Cedro 468-Unit Mixed-Use Rezoning With Roof-Variation and Selective Height-Step-Down Stipulations; Advances Gas-Station Administrative Streamlining

On August 14, 2024, the Goodyear Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7–0 to recommend approval of the Ninth Amendment to the El Cedro Planned Area Development, permitting Willow at El Cedro Ranch—a 468-unit mixed-use residential community on 42 acres at the southwest corner of 169th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road—subject to two negotiated design stipulations. The approval came after contentious debate over the applicant's request for 40-foot multifamily building heights (10 feet above city standard) and placement relative to adjacent single-family neighborhoods, with Commissioner Maria Hegedus pushing for more aggressive design concessions and the developer's representatives claiming financial constraints made broader step-downs infeasible.

The meeting also saw the commission unanimously recommend forwarding a zoning ordinance text amendment to council that would convert gas-station permitting from a use-permit process to an administrative, staff-level approval in commercial and industrial zones—a move that drew one commissioner's concerns about public disenfranchisement.

Key Speeches

"I'm expressing my opinion here looking at the product that they've proposed… those apartments don't look like fit with everything else… [I] would like it to look more like what's going on there. I also appreciate the fact that the comment was made in the report about sound attenuation of the three-story buildings kind of buffering the freeway from the rest of the development as well as the single family homes but several of the buildings along the internal collector Street there the purpose of the sound attenuation is lost and I would appreciate a little more distinction in the uh roof line of those buildings." — Commissioner Maria Hegedus

"The extra tall apartments buildings also line the north side and that has not been addressed… The Narrative completely disregards this neighborhood in its justification for the height increase… the city the architectural guidelines require multif family buildings exceeding two stories shall step up and back from the street and adjacent properties… narrative for the willow at elro states that they will not step up and back from the street and adjacent properties." — Christy Duce Romero, architect and Goodyear homeowner, public comment

"I mean we can go back and add more units and take away open space and then do that… we offered 39% open space so that we could do that… I'm trying to get to a point where I can approve it are you able instead of taking the old third floor off go the direction and shave off the unit along the end there so that our new residents in your project don't have people on the third floor looking across the street into their backyard[?]" — Commissioner Kent Heid, responding to applicant representative Scott Moss

"I think when we look though at where it is and where it's going to be AJ to the now the 303 going in that's a to me a whole different ball game… one of our strategic points was to have new apartments placed adjacent to freeways so in that sense this is the perfect location for that." — Commissioner Ernie Nepo Musino

Project Details

Changes from Previous Version

Not noted in transcript; this is the Ninth Amendment to the original 2007 El Cedro PAD, with eight prior formal amendments and three properties separately extracted.

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 1 (Christy Duce Romero)

Main concerns:

  1. Lack of step-back and step-down on north side of multifamily buildings adjacent to one- and two-story single-family residential neighborhood
  2. Justification for 10-foot height deviation focused only on Loop 303 (west) buffering, not north-side impact
  3. Architectural guidelines requirement for step-up and step-back from adjacent properties disregarded
  4. Incompatibility of building design with adjacent low-density residential character
  5. Visual impact and privacy concerns for adjacent homeowners

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: None identified

Support

Number of speakers in favor: None; applicant representatives and planning staff provided explanation and negotiation, but no public advocates spoke

Support framing: The approval was built on several rationales articulated by commissioners and staff:

  1. Loop 303 as driver of change: Multiple commissioners (Ernie Nepo Musino, Kent Heid, Chairman Climber) acknowledged that the pending Loop 303 freeway fundamentally altered the site's context and justified density increase
  2. Strategic land-use alignment: Commissioner Nepo Musino cited the city's General Plan 2035 Strategic Action Plan, which identified placement of multifamily housing adjacent to freeways as a goal; El Cedro meets that goal
  3. Open space offset: 39% open space (16.6 acres) vs. 15% city requirement was cited by multiple commissioners as sufficient offset for lot-size and setback reductions
  4. Housing affordability: Applicant emphasized state housing shortage (130,000–270,000 units) and local median price ($488,000), framing the project as addressing attainability; Commissioner Nepo Musino reinforced that smaller lots and variety of unit types enable entry-level homeownership
  5. Amenities and connectivity: Commitment to pool, parks, trails, streetscape elements, and public trail connections to broader city network viewed favorably
  6. Consistency with pad: Single-family lots proposed were comparable to LDR4 lots already approved within El Cedro; townhome dimensions similar to recently-approved R1A standard; minimal deviation from prior pad entitlements in single-family and townhome areas

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

Rezoning Approval:

The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Ninth Amendment to the El Cedro PAD and forwarded a recommendation of approval to City Council for the August 26, 2024 meeting, contingent on two design stipulations:

  1. Roof Height Variation Stipulation: "The roof heights of all multifamily residential buildings constructed within the property shall be varied and include pitched tile and/or tower-like tile elements in similar style to those roofs and tower elements found within El Cedro."

    • Rationale: Addresses Commissioner Hegedus's concern about flat, boxy rooflines and visual monotony; provides architectural relief without altering floor-plan or unit count
    • Applicability: All multifamily buildings
    • Status: Approved 7–0

  2. Step-Down Stipulation (Negotiated): Any multifamily building on the interior collector street (separating MFR from LDR5 zones) fronting neither Lower Buckeye Road nor the future Loop 303 Cotton Lane alignment, and located within 100 feet of the MFR/LDR5 zoning boundary, shall step down the first unit on the street-facing elevation to two-story height.

    • Rationale: Reduces visual impact and privacy intrusion on adjacent single-family homes; affects approximately the five buildings along the internal collector street (the three purple and two green units on the conceptual site plan)
    • Unit impact: Estimated loss of 10–12 units per affected building (the first unit/first few units drop from three to two stories)
    • Accepted by applicant: Scott Moss agreed this was workable; developer acknowledged internal design could incorporate pitched roofs on the reduced-height portion to minimize visual severity
    • Approved 7–0

Continuance: None; matter closed after vote

City Council timeline: Recommendation forwarded to August 26 council meeting for review and potential action

Controversies & Context

Height Deviation and City Standards

A recurrent tension emerged throughout the hearing: the applicant requested a 10-foot deviation from the city's 30-foot multifamily standard (to 40 feet), justified primarily by Loop 303 proximity and need for density to justify infrastructure and amenity offsets. Commissioner Kent Heid challenged whether the city's standards have meaning if every project deviates: "what the heck are we having City standard if we're not going to follow it and every time that we have a project you know there's a deviation uh the lot sizes are smaller than City standard and things like that."

Planning Manager Christian Williams responded that deviations are offset by mandated amenities, streetscape improvements, and enhanced open space. However, Commissioner Heid also noted a significant concern: the 275% density increase (from 168 to 63 dwelling units per acre) was "huge" and would impose "financial impact on the city… once it's completed what's really the burden on the city financially because this is going to Impact Services utilities all that stuff." Staff indicated water and sewer reports supported the density increase and that prior proposals had smaller parks; this one offers 39% open space and expanded trail corridors.

Sound Attenuation Justification

Commissioner Hegedus and public speaker Christy Duce Romero both identified an inconsistency in the applicant's design rationale: the staff report and applicant presentation argued that three-story buildings along the western (Loop 303) edge would buffer freeway noise for the rest of the development. However, buildings were internally rotated (on the staff's recommendation) to avoid overlooking adjacent single-family homes. This rotation, Hegedus noted, undermined the sound-buffering logic and weakened the case for the full 40-foot height. The applicant offered to add more roof variation as a compromise but resisted further height reductions.

Developer Financial Constraints

Scott Moss stated that to achieve the 468-unit yield promised to the property owner (Bet Investments), the 40-foot height and current lot configurations were necessary. Commissioner Hegedus pressed whether the developer could accept selective (not wholesale) two-story step-downs to the interior collector street; initially, Moss and Hayes indicated this would "significantly" reduce unit count and yield, potentially making the project infeasible. However, when Christian Williams proposed a 100-foot buffer zone affecting only the first unit per building, Moss agreed this was workable and that pitched roofs could minimize visual impact.

Loop 303 as Game-Changer

All commissioners acknowledged that the future Loop 303 elevated freeway—originally planned to be at-grade and raised to clear Lower Buckeye Road—fundamentally altered the site's land-use calculus. The applicant's presentation included ADOT visualizations of the freeway's elevated profile and junction geometry (on-ramps and off-ramps at Cotton Lane and Lower Buckeye), which made clear that the western edge would face a multi-lane, elevated highway. This justified denser, more commercial-oriented uses on the west side (Loop 303 frontage), transitioning to single-family on the east (toward unincorporated county land). Commissioner Nepo Musino noted that recent General Plan 2035 Strategic Action Plan guidance explicitly identified multifamily placement adjacent to freeways as a city priority for economic development and housing supply.

Community Context: Prior El Cedro Amendments

Planning Manager Williams provided historical context: El Cedro was originally a 616-acre PAD approved in 2007, pre-2008 housing crash. The pad has since undergone eight formal amendments and had three parcels (Vita at El Cedro, Logistics 85, and now parcel 4) extracted or reconfigured as separate projects. The property owner, Bet Investments (Bruce Toll), held the site for 20 years through multiple market cycles and prior rezoning attempts. The current request is the first major entitlement shift for parcel 4 since 2007; the crash, followed by subsequent recovery and Loop 303 planning, drove the reconsideration.

Inconsistency in City Standards Across Approvals

Commissioner Heid raised a meta-governance concern: the city recently approved the final plot plan for El Cedro 1C with larger single-family lots (6,700–7,000 square feet per lot) than the city standard, yet the Willow project proposes smaller lots (and reduced setbacks). When asked why deviations are routine, Christian Williams noted that PADs are by design intended to allow flexibility in exchange for community benefits (parks, trails, amenities). However, the cumulative effect—multiple amendments, each with its own offset rationale—creates a patchwork that may or may not cohere as a unified vision.

Non-Agenda Item: Vistas of Palm Valley Hotel Concerns

Before the formal agenda, resident Richard Carton raised concerns about a four-story hotel under construction at the Vistas of Palm Valley gated community (on a separate C2-zoned parcel). Carton alleged potential code violations:

Chairman Climber acknowledged the concerns and committed to staff follow-up, stating: "we will have someone contact you with the answers to your questions." No formal action was taken on this item; it was flagged for staff investigation and a later response to Carton.

Duration

Additional Agenda Item: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment — Convenience and Automotive Uses

Separately, the commission voted 7–0 to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment (Ordinance 1613) that would convert gas-station and certain automotive-use permitting from a conditional-use-permit (public-hearing) process to administrative staff-level approval in commercial (C1, C2) and industrial (I1, I2) zones, subject to detailed code-mandated conditions.

Scope of amendment:

Controversy:

Commissioner Kent Heid questioned whether the amendment disenfranchised public input by eliminating the use-permit (and associated public hearing) process for gas stations in industrial zones. He asked: "by doing this you eliminate that so when it when it The Proposal comes in and want to do a gas station on this i1 or I2 this commission is out of the picture you there's no public hearing so in that case we're disenfranchising the public to make an input on that proposal."

Planning Manager Christian Williams and planning staff member Sarah clarified that the amendment codified detailed stipulations (location, setback, design, density) developed during a March 2024 work session and April 2024 commission hearing. Any applicant must meet all stipulations to proceed administratively; if the application falls outside the stipulated envelope, it reverts to the use-permit process. Heid acknowledged this distinction, noting: "that's what I'm trying to clarify… in essence we've not been disenfranchised we've actually already said if you do all these things we're okay with it."

Next steps: Recommendation forwarded to City Council for work session on September 9, 2024, with potential adoption at the September 23, 2024 council meeting (subject to confirmation).

Vote: 7–0 approval

Staff Commentary

Planning Manager Christian Williams emphasized the amendment's goal of streamlining city processes and minimizing future commission and council involvement on routine commercial/automotive uses that meet predetermined standards. He noted that similar administrative pathways have been adopted for drive-through facilities and other uses.

At the close of the meeting, interim leadership introduced Kim Bradford, a new deputy director and "boomerang employee" returning to the City of Goodyear after prior service, joining the planning department's team.