Commission approves 209‑unit Honeycutt Run multifamily project despite resident traffic concerns

The Maricopa Planning and Zoning Commission on April 12 approved a General Plan amendment, rezoning and development review permit to allow the 209‑unit Honeycutt Run multifamily community on an 18.82‑acre vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Honeycutt Road and Hartman Road.

Staff and the applicant said the single‑story development meets the city’s updated zoning code and the housing goals in the General Plan. Commission votes on the General Plan amendment (GPA12‑01), rezoning (ZON21‑01) and Development Review Permit (DRP21‑02) were unanimous.

The project: the developer, SunCrest Real Estate, represented by Anthony Sumner of Sandbox Development, proposes 209 single‑story rental units in a gated community with private rear yards, amenities including a pool and common space, and 435 parking spaces (the application lists a required minimum of 427). The site plan shows two access points on Honeycutt Road; the main entrance will include a median break and full movements, and an eastern secondary access will function as right‑in/right‑out for everyday use and permit emergency access as needed. The applicant said 22 parking spaces will be equipped for electric vehicle charging.

Why it mattered: the site currently is designated Commercial on the General Plan and zoned General Business; the commission approved changing the future land‑use map to High Density Residential and rezoning the site to Multiple Unit Residential (RM) to allow the proposed product. Staff told commissioners the change is aligned with the city’s housing goals and the Maricopa Housing element of the General Plan. Staff also noted notification requirements were met, including signage on the property and mailed notices to owners within 600 feet.

Resident concerns: multiple speakers from the nearby Tortosa subdivision urged the commission to retain commercial zoning so the neighborhood could gain closer shopping and services. Kent Charles, a Tortosa resident, said, “I oppose any changes to the current zoning and development,” citing limited shopping nearby, narrow highway access into Tortosa, and repeated wash flooding that can close local roads. Charles told the commission he feared the development would add pedestrian and vehicle conflicts near local schools and increase travel for existing residents.

Traffic and access: traffic and engineering staff, and the project’s traffic engineer, said the analysis accounted for future build‑out of the surrounding area. Jamie Blakeman, the project traffic engineer, said the study “most certainly, yes” included Tortosa’s planned build‑out and projected future growth; the firm used a 4% annual growth projection in its year‑of‑build analysis and evaluated AM and PM peak hours (7–9 a.m. and 4–6 p.m.). City staff and the engineer told the commission the proposed residential use would generate fewer daily trips than a commercial development on the same parcel and that the main driveway meets the city’s spacing standards (the full access driveway is more than 500 feet from Hartman Road, per staff). Deputy Director Rudy Lopez told commissioners the traffic patterns raised by the public are now “on our radar” for future city study.

Design and operations: the applicant described the project as a low‑profile, single‑story, gated rental community with private rear yards for each unit and shared amenities. The development includes a long internal drive so the vehicle gates are set back from Honeycutt Road; staff said there is roughly 200 feet between the gate call box and Honeycutt, which the applicant said allows stacking of vehicles (approximately 10 cars) without backing onto Honeycutt. The applicant also confirmed plans for pedestrian gates adjacent to vehicular gates and an on‑site management office to respond to gate or operational issues.

Commission discussion and next steps: commissioners repeatedly raised traffic and school‑drop‑off concerns but also noted multifamily housing is a stated city objective and that the residential proposal generates fewer vehicle trips than the commercial alternative. Staff and the applicant agreed to coordinate with the HOA where needed for potential pedestrian connections; staff also acknowledged the commission’s request to study broader circulation needs in the Tortosa area. The commission approved the General Plan amendment, the rezoning to RM, and the DRP; each action passed unanimously.

Administrative notes and follow‑up: staff said the city will continue to review design details at the DRP stage and recommended shared access patterns for any future commercial corner adjacent to the site to minimize curb cuts. The commission’s leadership and staff also noted a city study session is scheduled for April 26 to discuss long‑range transportation and growth plans for the area.

Ending: with approvals complete, the developer will return to finalize construction documents and any outstanding design details required under the DRP; staff said additional engineering or roadway changes would be evaluated through future capital‑improvement planning and developer obligations as individual projects advance.