Lyn's note: Please feel free to send us any pictures you'd like included. If your photos are for sale, let us know and we will put them under that category. We have a special section for that purpose. If anyone would like to buy a print of any of Herbert's photos, all profits will be donated to one of the local non-profit organizations. Here are the links to this week's Pictures of the Week. Enjoy!
http://carefreeazbusinesses.com/pictures-of-the-week-9417.html
http://carefreeazbusinesses.com/pictures-of-the-week-9417.html
Kimber
Photo by Phil Corso
Photo by Phil Corso
Luna
Photo by Karen Keilt
Here are your bonus rounds from Herbert.
http://aneyeonyouproduction.com/83017-afternoon.html
Photo by Karen Keilt
Here are your bonus rounds from Herbert.
http://aneyeonyouproduction.com/83017-afternoon.html
Photos by Herbert Hitchon
Town of Carefree Marketing newsletter
http://www.carefree.org/336/IN-THE-NEWS
City Sun Times link:
http://news.citysuntimes.com/
Zoning for a Promising Future
A recent letter to the editor [in the Sonoran News] accused Carefree of using its zoning ordinances to generate additional town revenues rather than fulfilling the desires of our residents. Nothing could be farther from the truth, so let’s set the record straight. First of all, this resident was on the Long Range Financial Planning Committee and so was part of the planning process and also should know that nothing has been formally proposed or approved concerning neighborhood density to date.
There are two challenges here: 1. Generate revenues for the Town so that we don’t have to institute a property tax and sustain the Town long term for our residents. And, 2. Responding to what demographic trends are telling us.
Over the past year, the Town has been working with a committee of residents to reconcile the adverse impacts which state legislative changes will have on Carefree’s future municipal revenue streams. To date, the Town has held four lengthy public workshops dating back to last February to further vet these discussions and help develop sound strategies. And, based upon the Town’s fiscally conservative approach, there were not any areas identified by the committee where significant savings could be yielded.
With contracting revenue streams, we felt it was our collective responsibility to ensure that we identified solutions to the community’s future financial deficit, yet still provide the services and housing options desired by our residents.
These public dialogues then evolved into a conversation regarding opportunities to generate more revenue. The Town’s largest revenue stream originates from local sales tax. Like many rural communities throughout the state, Carefree is now turning its eyes toward ways to generate revenue from many visitors driving though our community. Our street network includes four major arterial streets that connect larger communities around Carefree to schools, employment centers and regional recreational facilities such as Bartlett Lake. Based upon existing and projected future traffic volumes at these intersections, the opportunity to capture revenue from these properties by positioning them to appeal to high quality restaurants, businesses and potential resort hotels seemed like an optimum fit.
An additional primary finding of the committee was that a sizable number of Foothills residents expressed their desire to downsize their living situation yet stay in Carefree. These residents expressed their desire to stay where their friends, church and familiar retailers were present, yet not live in as large of a home.
This need can be met be creating sustainable residential neighborhoods of smaller homes on smaller property sizes. The majority of Carefree contains very low density, semi-rural neighborhoods with large spacious homes and properties. A niche in the marketplace can easily be seen by the market support for the new Almarte and Eastwood communities, with 70% of their sales coming from current area residents.
Recently, one member of the aforementioned committee (who was an active part of the past discussions) has expressed reservations about the Town granting increased density on a 35 acre property south of SkyRanch called Stagecreek Estates. The density that the developer proposed is higher than one which the Town would support. However, a density pattern similar to the surrounding developments could be more amenable. We will continue to work with this developer to cultivate a plan which is more in keeping with the spacious Carefree lifestyle yet meets the expressed desire of many residents to downsize.
Indeed, our collective interest is to create a sustainable community where our residents can obtain the living situation they desire, property values increase, businesses are viable and the Town generates sufficient funding to provide the quality of life services its citizens desire. All of this requires understanding of facts and careful consideration of the options. The Mayor, Council and Staff would be pleased to meet with Carefree residents to discuss the Town’s road to sustainability.
Please contact the Mayor at mayor@carefree.org to schedule a neighborhood meeting today.
Mayor Les Peterson
Town of Carefree
Sounds like more developer fast talk. Has the City gotten actual locations that these developers developed and manage within last 7 years, called the Cities of those locations and checked the record on how the development went (adherence to permits, inspections, resident complaints, etc?) and how is each one doing today (upkeep, issues, tax revenue)? Like with Lewis, the City appears to have not done their homework. Interesting these developers already have plans to (or did) present to investors based on the higher height yet no funding approval. They are saying unless they get the increased height from the City the project is dead in the water (little pseudo blackmail)?
As I recall within walking distance of the City Center is a lot of homes, apartments/condos. So they are saying that 134 new living places downtown (which a lot would probably be winter visitors) will generate a lot more tax income for the City and sales for merchants by these new residents living in the City Center? I doubt these new residents will spend a lot of time buying things from the merchants’ downtown given their competitive options not too far away by car. Does Baker Group who did the study guarantee the tax revenue stream over a period of time backed by a bond if it doesn’t happen or is their study pure wishful speculation? I visit the downtown area to get mail and sometimes buy a coke at the gas station and driving through the City Center I see very few vehicles or people walking around… I always look just like I only see one or two bikes on Cave Creek and never on Tom Darlington… never have seen a bicyclist in downtown Center so far (see a lot in my neighborhood). Some days I’ll see tourist taking pictures but only a few very randomly… more in snow bird time. Has anyone done a comprehensive foot traffic study with a survey to discovery the real activity vs statistical assumptions?
So approved with no check with Cites where the developer has done other projects as I recommended. So much for sound management as the Council except for one believes exacting what the developers said with no verification… isn’t that called a rubber stamp?
People don’t normal rent and move away… what do they call snowbirds? They rent or own and disappear usually during May thru Sept. Does the City have statistics on Carefree residential homes/apartments/condos that are gone during summer… yes the do if they use City water usage to see usage drop off… better than the words of someone. Why is the City Center so empty during the non-snowbird months if residents/renters don’t leave?
For the City’s sake I hope this project turns out alright!
Bob Brenner
(Lyn's note: I passed Bob's email on to Gary Neiss for his input. See his reply below.)
Hi Lyn and Bob,
Thank you for the inquiry.
First and foremost, the Mayor and Council are your fellow neighbors, residents and friends who have volunteered their time and energy to simply make this community better. Their interest is in applying their past professional experiences and education to make the best business decisions for the community they call home. Therefore, they certainly take their responsibilities seriously to make the best decision for their community.
As typical in the municipal process, the development team reviewed their portfolio and history with multi million dollar development projects which included office parks, apartments, condominiums and very high end single-family homes with Council members. Council members reviewed their portfolio and also had discussions with the owner of the land, INCA Capital who reviewed not only the developer’s portfolio but their performance and financial capabilities. INCA whom has a broad range of multi million dollar investments was very satisfied with the new development team’s ability to deliver on this project and also shared their thoughts/knowledge with Council members.
As far as the summers go, is the glass half full or is it half empty. We know we can be successful living in the fifth largest metropolitan area in the nation and a growing primary trade area with over 50,000 people today. Not everyone of these consumers in the trade area leaves for the summer as many of these folks still work and have families looking for things to do. One has to just look at a business called the English Rose Tearoom which is still selling at a brisk rate “hot” tea in the heat of the summer (imagine that). There are numerous restaurants and businesses in neighboring communities that also continue to do good business. The ones that seem to be more successful are cultivating an experience which is appealing to the marketplace. If we are successful in cultivating these types of businesses that create a unique vibe which is appealing to the marketplace it will certainly address the current experiences or lack thereof. The residential component within the Town Center will help to attract these additional businesses and help the current businesses grow over time.
Best regards,
Gary Neiss, Town Administrator
Town of Carefree
I believe the architecture of the facility that is being discussed is of the highest considerations. It can be very glamorous or a dull box. One of the reasons I wasn't keen on Mr. Lewis' condos was the architecture. I thought they would tend to look like an apartment complex.
Lois Treacy
Is there a picture of that this will look like? I like the idea of this type of project as long as it is well managed and there long term renters. The usual suspects are never happy. Would love to see what they would propose for the site…
Laurie Palace
I am a member of Carefree's Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). Like the Carefree Council, which also acts as the Board of Directors for the Carefree Water Company, we wear more than one hat. We also act as the Development Review Board (DRB) and as the Board of Adjustment (BOA).
I was deeply offended by the lack of respect Councilman Jim Van Allen showed towards the DRB. Mr. Van Allen kept insisting that the design for the Easy Street South building must come back to the Council for review after going to the DRB, which he very obviously held in contempt and didn't trust to do the job. He cited the fact that the Council hears items after they are heard by P&Z. Gary Neiss explained that P&Z hears proposed zoning amendments and is a recommending body in that legislative process.
The DRB is an administrative body, and as such, makes decisions, not recommendations, and those decisions do not go back to the Council for approval. This also holds true when we act as the BOA, hearing requests for variances, which is a judicial process. The 3 bodies play quite different roles. Only one of them involves the Council.
Mr. Neiss said in his reply to Bob Brenner's queries, "First and foremost, the Mayor and Council are your fellow neighbors, residents and friends who have volunteered their time and energy to simply make this community better. Their interest is in applying their past professional experiences and education to make the best business decisions for the community they call home. Therefore, they certainly take their responsibilities seriously to make the best decision for their community". This holds equally true for the P&Z/DRB/BOA.
After the Council meeting adjourned, Mr. Van Allen's cohort, John Traynor, approached me and asked if he was correct that the DRB was being handed a "box", with the height and the maximum size already approved. I agreed that the DRB could not amend the height or the maximum footprint of the building. Those are dictated by the development agreement and the zoning setbacks. In retrospect, I believe Mr. Traynor asked the question in the form of what the DRB can't do to get the answer he desired. In agreeing that he was correct in what we can't do, I mistakenly assumed that Mr. Traynor had at least a modicum of a clue what we can do, which is accept, suggest changes to, or turn down entirely, designs that come before us, and that he would publish it accordingly. I was wrong. Mr. Traynor's comment in his publication was ignorant, disingenuous, or both.
Lyn Hitchon
John Traynor is at it again. At the August 29th Council meeting, he read from a letter written by Gary Neiss. " 'The current owner of the southern property previously owned by Butte Properties' blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I was under the impression that this was a done deal, and now I am hearing that there is no closing, and a closing won't occur until after the Council agrees. Kind of awkward. This is a public document and it contradicts what facts were drawn."
Mayor Peterson said, "I don't understand the point". Mr. Neiss said, "Let's read what it says. 'The current owner of the southern property previously owned by Butte Properties has been working with a local design team', that's these folks here that INCA is working with." Mr. Farrar pointed to Justin Ferrandi and said, "INCA". Mr. Neiss told Mr. Traynor, "We explained that earlier in the presentation. So, that's what that says."
Mr. Traynor replied, "I won't argue with you. It said what it said. Forget what the words were. It said what it said." "I'm sorry, but I read what I read. People can say anything.” vimeo.com/231946872 Yes Mr. Traynor, "people" can say anything. But INCA owns the property discussed NOT Ed Lewis' Butte Properties. That closing had occurred and it was stated several times during the meeting, before you got up and tried to accuse Mr. Neiss of lying about the closing on a public document. This was just another of your cheap, failed attempts to attack Gary Neiss.
John Traynor has a long history of never letting facts interfere with his statements. Coming off hostile, aggressive and uninformed is never a good way to present an argument. I think Ron White summed it up best—-
“You Can’t Fix Stupid”
PS: The photos in Carefree Truth, Issue #590-Easy St. South Development Agreement II, pt. 3, were less sharp because I did not bring my camera. Mr. Traynor, disgruntled with a previous photo of him that we had published, told me the next time I took a picture of him he would shove the camera so far up my ass I would need a proctologist to find it. I retrieved the pics from the camcorder. Neither is a magic camera, and the photos are only as attractive as the subjects.
Herbert Hitchon
(Lyn's note: One of our readers asked if I knew how to donate to help the people in Houston. This just came across my computer as part of a larger email.) Today it's easier than ever to help victims of natural disasters. Thanks to web sites like PayPal you can send a $25 donation to the reputable charity of your choice with a click or two.
Town of Carefree Marketing newsletter
http://www.carefree.org/336/IN-THE-NEWS
City Sun Times link:
http://news.citysuntimes.com/
Zoning for a Promising Future
A recent letter to the editor [in the Sonoran News] accused Carefree of using its zoning ordinances to generate additional town revenues rather than fulfilling the desires of our residents. Nothing could be farther from the truth, so let’s set the record straight. First of all, this resident was on the Long Range Financial Planning Committee and so was part of the planning process and also should know that nothing has been formally proposed or approved concerning neighborhood density to date.
There are two challenges here: 1. Generate revenues for the Town so that we don’t have to institute a property tax and sustain the Town long term for our residents. And, 2. Responding to what demographic trends are telling us.
Over the past year, the Town has been working with a committee of residents to reconcile the adverse impacts which state legislative changes will have on Carefree’s future municipal revenue streams. To date, the Town has held four lengthy public workshops dating back to last February to further vet these discussions and help develop sound strategies. And, based upon the Town’s fiscally conservative approach, there were not any areas identified by the committee where significant savings could be yielded.
With contracting revenue streams, we felt it was our collective responsibility to ensure that we identified solutions to the community’s future financial deficit, yet still provide the services and housing options desired by our residents.
These public dialogues then evolved into a conversation regarding opportunities to generate more revenue. The Town’s largest revenue stream originates from local sales tax. Like many rural communities throughout the state, Carefree is now turning its eyes toward ways to generate revenue from many visitors driving though our community. Our street network includes four major arterial streets that connect larger communities around Carefree to schools, employment centers and regional recreational facilities such as Bartlett Lake. Based upon existing and projected future traffic volumes at these intersections, the opportunity to capture revenue from these properties by positioning them to appeal to high quality restaurants, businesses and potential resort hotels seemed like an optimum fit.
An additional primary finding of the committee was that a sizable number of Foothills residents expressed their desire to downsize their living situation yet stay in Carefree. These residents expressed their desire to stay where their friends, church and familiar retailers were present, yet not live in as large of a home.
This need can be met be creating sustainable residential neighborhoods of smaller homes on smaller property sizes. The majority of Carefree contains very low density, semi-rural neighborhoods with large spacious homes and properties. A niche in the marketplace can easily be seen by the market support for the new Almarte and Eastwood communities, with 70% of their sales coming from current area residents.
Recently, one member of the aforementioned committee (who was an active part of the past discussions) has expressed reservations about the Town granting increased density on a 35 acre property south of SkyRanch called Stagecreek Estates. The density that the developer proposed is higher than one which the Town would support. However, a density pattern similar to the surrounding developments could be more amenable. We will continue to work with this developer to cultivate a plan which is more in keeping with the spacious Carefree lifestyle yet meets the expressed desire of many residents to downsize.
Indeed, our collective interest is to create a sustainable community where our residents can obtain the living situation they desire, property values increase, businesses are viable and the Town generates sufficient funding to provide the quality of life services its citizens desire. All of this requires understanding of facts and careful consideration of the options. The Mayor, Council and Staff would be pleased to meet with Carefree residents to discuss the Town’s road to sustainability.
Please contact the Mayor at mayor@carefree.org to schedule a neighborhood meeting today.
Mayor Les Peterson
Town of Carefree
Sounds like more developer fast talk. Has the City gotten actual locations that these developers developed and manage within last 7 years, called the Cities of those locations and checked the record on how the development went (adherence to permits, inspections, resident complaints, etc?) and how is each one doing today (upkeep, issues, tax revenue)? Like with Lewis, the City appears to have not done their homework. Interesting these developers already have plans to (or did) present to investors based on the higher height yet no funding approval. They are saying unless they get the increased height from the City the project is dead in the water (little pseudo blackmail)?
As I recall within walking distance of the City Center is a lot of homes, apartments/condos. So they are saying that 134 new living places downtown (which a lot would probably be winter visitors) will generate a lot more tax income for the City and sales for merchants by these new residents living in the City Center? I doubt these new residents will spend a lot of time buying things from the merchants’ downtown given their competitive options not too far away by car. Does Baker Group who did the study guarantee the tax revenue stream over a period of time backed by a bond if it doesn’t happen or is their study pure wishful speculation? I visit the downtown area to get mail and sometimes buy a coke at the gas station and driving through the City Center I see very few vehicles or people walking around… I always look just like I only see one or two bikes on Cave Creek and never on Tom Darlington… never have seen a bicyclist in downtown Center so far (see a lot in my neighborhood). Some days I’ll see tourist taking pictures but only a few very randomly… more in snow bird time. Has anyone done a comprehensive foot traffic study with a survey to discovery the real activity vs statistical assumptions?
So approved with no check with Cites where the developer has done other projects as I recommended. So much for sound management as the Council except for one believes exacting what the developers said with no verification… isn’t that called a rubber stamp?
People don’t normal rent and move away… what do they call snowbirds? They rent or own and disappear usually during May thru Sept. Does the City have statistics on Carefree residential homes/apartments/condos that are gone during summer… yes the do if they use City water usage to see usage drop off… better than the words of someone. Why is the City Center so empty during the non-snowbird months if residents/renters don’t leave?
For the City’s sake I hope this project turns out alright!
Bob Brenner
(Lyn's note: I passed Bob's email on to Gary Neiss for his input. See his reply below.)
Hi Lyn and Bob,
Thank you for the inquiry.
First and foremost, the Mayor and Council are your fellow neighbors, residents and friends who have volunteered their time and energy to simply make this community better. Their interest is in applying their past professional experiences and education to make the best business decisions for the community they call home. Therefore, they certainly take their responsibilities seriously to make the best decision for their community.
As typical in the municipal process, the development team reviewed their portfolio and history with multi million dollar development projects which included office parks, apartments, condominiums and very high end single-family homes with Council members. Council members reviewed their portfolio and also had discussions with the owner of the land, INCA Capital who reviewed not only the developer’s portfolio but their performance and financial capabilities. INCA whom has a broad range of multi million dollar investments was very satisfied with the new development team’s ability to deliver on this project and also shared their thoughts/knowledge with Council members.
As far as the summers go, is the glass half full or is it half empty. We know we can be successful living in the fifth largest metropolitan area in the nation and a growing primary trade area with over 50,000 people today. Not everyone of these consumers in the trade area leaves for the summer as many of these folks still work and have families looking for things to do. One has to just look at a business called the English Rose Tearoom which is still selling at a brisk rate “hot” tea in the heat of the summer (imagine that). There are numerous restaurants and businesses in neighboring communities that also continue to do good business. The ones that seem to be more successful are cultivating an experience which is appealing to the marketplace. If we are successful in cultivating these types of businesses that create a unique vibe which is appealing to the marketplace it will certainly address the current experiences or lack thereof. The residential component within the Town Center will help to attract these additional businesses and help the current businesses grow over time.
Best regards,
Gary Neiss, Town Administrator
Town of Carefree
I believe the architecture of the facility that is being discussed is of the highest considerations. It can be very glamorous or a dull box. One of the reasons I wasn't keen on Mr. Lewis' condos was the architecture. I thought they would tend to look like an apartment complex.
Lois Treacy
Is there a picture of that this will look like? I like the idea of this type of project as long as it is well managed and there long term renters. The usual suspects are never happy. Would love to see what they would propose for the site…
Laurie Palace
I am a member of Carefree's Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). Like the Carefree Council, which also acts as the Board of Directors for the Carefree Water Company, we wear more than one hat. We also act as the Development Review Board (DRB) and as the Board of Adjustment (BOA).
I was deeply offended by the lack of respect Councilman Jim Van Allen showed towards the DRB. Mr. Van Allen kept insisting that the design for the Easy Street South building must come back to the Council for review after going to the DRB, which he very obviously held in contempt and didn't trust to do the job. He cited the fact that the Council hears items after they are heard by P&Z. Gary Neiss explained that P&Z hears proposed zoning amendments and is a recommending body in that legislative process.
The DRB is an administrative body, and as such, makes decisions, not recommendations, and those decisions do not go back to the Council for approval. This also holds true when we act as the BOA, hearing requests for variances, which is a judicial process. The 3 bodies play quite different roles. Only one of them involves the Council.
Mr. Neiss said in his reply to Bob Brenner's queries, "First and foremost, the Mayor and Council are your fellow neighbors, residents and friends who have volunteered their time and energy to simply make this community better. Their interest is in applying their past professional experiences and education to make the best business decisions for the community they call home. Therefore, they certainly take their responsibilities seriously to make the best decision for their community". This holds equally true for the P&Z/DRB/BOA.
After the Council meeting adjourned, Mr. Van Allen's cohort, John Traynor, approached me and asked if he was correct that the DRB was being handed a "box", with the height and the maximum size already approved. I agreed that the DRB could not amend the height or the maximum footprint of the building. Those are dictated by the development agreement and the zoning setbacks. In retrospect, I believe Mr. Traynor asked the question in the form of what the DRB can't do to get the answer he desired. In agreeing that he was correct in what we can't do, I mistakenly assumed that Mr. Traynor had at least a modicum of a clue what we can do, which is accept, suggest changes to, or turn down entirely, designs that come before us, and that he would publish it accordingly. I was wrong. Mr. Traynor's comment in his publication was ignorant, disingenuous, or both.
Lyn Hitchon
John Traynor is at it again. At the August 29th Council meeting, he read from a letter written by Gary Neiss. " 'The current owner of the southern property previously owned by Butte Properties' blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I was under the impression that this was a done deal, and now I am hearing that there is no closing, and a closing won't occur until after the Council agrees. Kind of awkward. This is a public document and it contradicts what facts were drawn."
Mayor Peterson said, "I don't understand the point". Mr. Neiss said, "Let's read what it says. 'The current owner of the southern property previously owned by Butte Properties has been working with a local design team', that's these folks here that INCA is working with." Mr. Farrar pointed to Justin Ferrandi and said, "INCA". Mr. Neiss told Mr. Traynor, "We explained that earlier in the presentation. So, that's what that says."
Mr. Traynor replied, "I won't argue with you. It said what it said. Forget what the words were. It said what it said." "I'm sorry, but I read what I read. People can say anything.” vimeo.com/231946872 Yes Mr. Traynor, "people" can say anything. But INCA owns the property discussed NOT Ed Lewis' Butte Properties. That closing had occurred and it was stated several times during the meeting, before you got up and tried to accuse Mr. Neiss of lying about the closing on a public document. This was just another of your cheap, failed attempts to attack Gary Neiss.
John Traynor has a long history of never letting facts interfere with his statements. Coming off hostile, aggressive and uninformed is never a good way to present an argument. I think Ron White summed it up best—-
“You Can’t Fix Stupid”
PS: The photos in Carefree Truth, Issue #590-Easy St. South Development Agreement II, pt. 3, were less sharp because I did not bring my camera. Mr. Traynor, disgruntled with a previous photo of him that we had published, told me the next time I took a picture of him he would shove the camera so far up my ass I would need a proctologist to find it. I retrieved the pics from the camcorder. Neither is a magic camera, and the photos are only as attractive as the subjects.
Herbert Hitchon
(Lyn's note: One of our readers asked if I knew how to donate to help the people in Houston. This just came across my computer as part of a larger email.) Today it's easier than ever to help victims of natural disasters. Thanks to web sites like PayPal you can send a $25 donation to the reputable charity of your choice with a click or two.
DOG FRIENDLY RENTAL SOUGHT
ABOUT ME:
Over 55
Non-smoker, No drugs
Excellent job in central Phoenix
Yoga and Meditation Instructor
Animal Lover – Volunteers w/local rescue and rehabs dogs/horses
Tree hugger
ABOUT THE DOGS
Kodiak – rescued Malamute – 6 years old – my service dog (training)
Winston – Jack Russell- 13 years old – retired therapy dog
Yogi – Jack Russell – 9 years old – my yoga buddy
LOOKING FOR:
Guest house, single family home, duplex
Cannot be around chemicals (cleaning, herbicides/pesticides, etc)
550 sq ft or larger
Nice yard, secure fencing, an area to enjoy!
Safe & quiet location, well cared for, prefer energy efficient
w/d hookups
Rent not to exceed $1150 please.
References Available
CONTACT: Barbara @ 480.201.9309
ABOUT ME:
Over 55
Non-smoker, No drugs
Excellent job in central Phoenix
Yoga and Meditation Instructor
Animal Lover – Volunteers w/local rescue and rehabs dogs/horses
Tree hugger
ABOUT THE DOGS
Kodiak – rescued Malamute – 6 years old – my service dog (training)
Winston – Jack Russell- 13 years old – retired therapy dog
Yogi – Jack Russell – 9 years old – my yoga buddy
LOOKING FOR:
Guest house, single family home, duplex
Cannot be around chemicals (cleaning, herbicides/pesticides, etc)
550 sq ft or larger
Nice yard, secure fencing, an area to enjoy!
Safe & quiet location, well cared for, prefer energy efficient
w/d hookups
Rent not to exceed $1150 please.
References Available
CONTACT: Barbara @ 480.201.9309