Council approves Rittenhouse Commons PAD amendment, allowing rental option amid water‑supply delay
Loading...
Summary
By a 6–1 vote the council approved an amendment to the Rittenhouse Commons PAD to remove "for sale" language and allow a for‑rent product; the developer says lack of a certificate of assured water supply forced the change, and the applicant intends to convert to for‑sale when water is available.
QUEEN CREEK — The Town Council voted 6–1 to amend the planned area development (PAD) description for the Rittenhouse Commons project so the previously permitted townhomes may be built as a for‑rent product, rather than only as for‑sale units, citing a water‑supply certification barrier to immediate sales.
Principal planner Les Johnson told the council the 16.5‑acre site at the northeast corner of Rittenhouse and Sossaman was rezoned to medium‑density residential with a PAD in June 2023 and had approvals for a 166‑unit townhome site plan and design review. The applicant requested a PAD text amendment to change the line that described the development as a “for sale townhome development” to allow for a for‑rent option while keeping the previously approved site plan and elevations unchanged.
Applicant representative Shawn Lake said the project’s design, unit counts, garages and amenities would remain the same; the only requested change is the deletion of the words “for sale” from the PAD. Lake said the applicant began construction document work after the 2023 approvals but encountered a water‑supply limitation that prevented issuance of a public report for a subdivision (a certificate of assured water supply). "We can't obtain a public report for a subdivision because we can't obtain a certificate of assured water supply," Lake said. He added that the owner would prefer to sell units when a certificate is available and intends to convert to for‑sale then.
Planning staff reported more than 120 emails of opposition had been received; staff verified addresses for about 90 of those correspondences. At least two neighborhood meetings were held (August 2024 and May 27, 2025) with only a handful of residents attending, staff said. Traffic and dust were among the concerns raised in the public record.
Councilmembers who spoke in favor noted this is the same site plan and product previously approved by the planning commission and the council, and argued the parcel is constrained by busy arterials and a Union Pacific rail line—making townhomes or multifamily a logical use. Councilmember Benning said the project would provide 166 homes and described it as “attractive, dense, well‑landscaped” and consistent with nearby development. Councilmember Brown said he opposed the amendment, emphasizing constituent preference in the community against additional rentals; Brown said he had supported the original approval when it was for sale but would not support conversion to for‑rent.
Councilmember McClure, Vice Mayor Martineau, Councilmembers Padilla and Oliphant and Mayor Wheatley voted yes; Brown voted no. The council approved ordinance 86825 (P24‑0100) amending the PAD to allow a for‑rent option while preserving the previously approved site plan and design standards.
The applicant told council the delay has been costly: Tyler Wright, speaking for the developer, said the project has incurred carrying and soft costs in the range of $300,000–$500,000 since the water‑certainty change that prevented filing the final plat. City staff and the applicant said the developer may build the site as a single parcel for rent under a site‑plan approach now and return to a subdivision/final plat and public report process for sales if and when a certificate of assured water supply becomes available.
The planning commission had unanimously recommended approval. The council motion referenced ordinance number 86825 and case P24‑0100 in the record; the amendment passed 6–1.
