Commission forwards Broadstone Arrowhead multifamily plan to council after debate over trail connection and traffic mitigation

The Glendale Planning Commission recommended City Council approval March 27 for the Broadstone Arrowhead proposal (GPA24-04) and forwarded a rezoning (ZON24-08) to allow a 368‑unit multifamily project on roughly 19 acres west of the Deer Valley/70th Avenue corridor, while striking one staff-recommended stipulation requiring continuation of a paved trail along the site’s west perimeter.

Planning staff described the project as a new PAD to permit 368 residential units (about 19.3 units per acre) in a mix of two-story townhome-style buildings (78 units) along the north edge and three-story apartment buildings (290 units) to the south. The plan dedicates roughly 48% of the site to open space and proposes amenities including a resort-style pool, clubhouse, dog parks and a leisure path spanning over a half mile. Staff said utilities exist, a traffic impact analysis was required and reviewed by the transportation department, and multiple internal departments supported the application. Notification letters and a neighborhood meeting were held; 23 attendees raised concerns about traffic, cut-through routes and building heights.

Alliance Residential Company representative Brian Greathouse and project team members described outreach efforts, concessions made to the Eagle Heights neighborhood (reconfiguring northern buildings to two-story townhomes, enhanced tree plantings, fencing and proposed modifications to Rose Garden Lane), and a secondary access point to route vehicles to Joy Boulevard and existing signalized intersections. Greathouse asked the commission to approve the rezoning subject to stipulation No. 1 only (conformance to the PAD narrative) and not to require stipulation No. 2, which would obligate the developer to continue the city’s Open Space and Trails master-plan paved trail along the west perimeter—an item the developer and some neighbors opposed because the immediate northern neighbors consider portions of the path private and worry about trespass/maintenance issues.

Multiple Eagle Heights residents spoke in opposition or with conditions, citing concerns about cut‑through traffic, one-way circulation constraints (perceived single ingress/egress), dust during construction, safety for children, and school capacity. Several neighborhood speakers said they had negotiated a private agreement with the developer addressing fencing, access, and other mitigations but asked that staff’s trail requirement be removed. Staff explained the trails stipulation reflected adopted master-plan guidance and Parks & Recreation’s position but acknowledged the commission must weigh neighborhood negotiations.

After extended discussion, the commission voted to forward GPA24-04 to City Council as written and to recommend ZON24-08 subject to stipulation No. 1 only (staff stipulation No. 2 removed by the commission). Commissioners emphasized the importance of traffic mitigation and continued coordination between the developer, HOA and city departments; staff noted council will receive the Planning Commission record including the original staff stipulations and the commission’s recommendation.