Attachment G - Opposition - Z-16-22-1.doc.pdf

From:
Julie Green
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
Z-16-22
Date:
Thursday, September 29, 2022 5:23:46 PM
Attachments:
5F47A098-D2BB-4CB8-BB39-37B164E974A7.png
6C1F278F-6D8C-481E-805E-1C4CB02AEDDE.png
Planning commission members,
I am sure you are familiar with the rezoning attempt at this point, and probably have made up
your mind. I ask you to PLEASE consider the following information.
We are not opposed to building beautiful 1 story homes on the acre parcels. The now revised plan is 4.81
acres. It is completely surrounded by S-1- 1 STORY homes. This area does NOT back up to open space, a
mountain, or become a dead end street, this is literally “mid block”.
These are recently approved developments being built nearby:
TAYLOR MORRISON-Z-25-19:
29.17 acres
1.47 dwellings per acre
ALL 1 story homes- max 24 feet
20% open space
15 feet minimum to property line
STERLING HEIGHTS (K Hovnanian Homes) Z-53-20
15.52 acres
S-1 properties only touch on 1 side, with a 33 foot easement on NORTH boundary
All 1 story homes on the NORTH side
30% open space
Dark Sky Ordinance
Mr Schmilles proposal: 
14 homes on 4.81 acres 
2.78 homes per acre, average lot size 11,000 feet
2 STORY HOMES - approx. 30 feet high
ONLY 5 feet to property line
ONLY 6% open space
As you can see, this development wants density that the other 2 don’t have. This is such a small area, and
once again- SURROUNDED by 1 story, 1 acre lots. 
On a personal note, we bought our property on 11/19. The previous owners installed solar panels at the back
of our property (2005). The house is run completely on solar. The panels are at ground level. I am sure they
never imagined someone being able to build a 2 story home right behind our property.  They would always
be shaded by a 2 story home, 5 feet away from our property line.
We love living in Phoenix. I consider myself an “urban gardener.” I don’t want to live in Cave Creek, New
River, etc. to have a rural feel.  These areas are special, and shouldn’t just be concreted over to make every
developer happy. Many people seek out larger lots, since developers constantly want postage stamp lots. I
don’t own horses, but enjoy the rural feel they bring to the neighborhood.
The Phx General plan states this: 
Growth Strategy Mapping Exercises: Identification of three areas within each
ATTACHMENT G

village – Areas of Preservation, Areas of Retrofit and Areas of Growth.   Why can’t
this area be an “area of preservation”?
We are in a stage 1 water alert.
The house on the corner was purchased over 20 years ago. He would have never imagined 4 homes backing
up to his property, 2 story, and minimal distance between property lines. This is a horrible situation Mr.
Schmille has put this owner in.
MR SCHMILLE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS FOR  “DESERT DAWN ESTATES” WHICH IS LESS
THAN 1 MILE AWAY, AND THE SAME AMOUT OF LAND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. I HAVE
ATTACHED HIS DRAWINGS. HE IS BUILDING 9 HOMES. IF THERE IS TO BE A DISCUSSION,
PLEASE CONSIDER THE 9 HOMES, VS. 14.ృృ
Decisions should be based on logical and sound analysis rather than personalities, preferences, or property
owner. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should…
Thank you for your time,
Julie Green
3135 W Dynamite Blvd
480-414-9001

RE:
Z-16-22
APN 205-02-020A and B
Dear City of Phoenix Planning Commission:
I want to go down on record as being 100% opposed to the proposed zoning change to 
the property, which is the subject this case number Z-16-22-1. I live on a 2-acre parcel 
at 28036 N. 31st Ave (SWC of Dynamite and 31st Ave) that lies on the NEC of the 
proposed development. It is my understanding that Mr. Schmille, has amended his 
original plan that was presented to the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee to 
reduce his development from 19 residential dwelling units to 14 residential units, and to 
limit his development to parcels 205-02-020A and B only.  The two parcels encompass 
an area of 4.81 acres.  
I do not oppose development to the subject parcels provided the zoning remains 
S-1 and only one single story dwelling unit per acre is allowed. I oppose the 
zoning change for the following reasons:
1) I purchased my property 21 years ago in 2001 because of the 1-acre zoning 
designation and the character of the neighborhood.  I have always expected that the 
adjacent vacant lot would be developed at some point with residences on minimum 1-
acre lots as the current S-1 zoning regulation stipulates. Since I moved in, I have put a 
significant amount of money into the property for improvements. If I had known the 
zoning would be changed, (and could be done so against the will of the existing 
neighbors in the area) I would have never purchased property.
2) This is an established S-1 neighborhood. My house was constructed in 1963 ans 
has been there for nearly 60 years.  It is true, the City allowed rezoning of a portion of 
the neighborhood, and some tract development has been constructed, most of which 
was during or before 2002. Since then, not many of the vacant properties have been 
developed, with the exception of several custom homes on minimum 1–acre parcels
and the Deem Hill/Taylor Morrison development.  Currently, two new tract home 
developments are being constructed, one property (Desert Dawn Estates) is or was 
owned by Mr. Schmille.  So far, the tract housing development in the neighborhood has
been limited primarily to the periphery.  The interior of the neighborhood is still 
composed of S-1 properties, as the attached exhibit shows. This area contains 
approximately 150 to 200+/- properties of 1-acre or greater with existing single-family 
homes.
3)  Changing the zoning in an established residential neighborhood to a higher 
density zoning designation is not appropriate, especially when the proposed 
development is adjacent to existing S-1 properties.  Up until recently, the existing tract 
homes in the neighborhood were located across the streets from the S-1 properties and 
do not butt up directly on the property lines. A notable exception is the aforementioned 
Deem Hills residential development.  This property is located in the NWC of the 
neighborhood (see exhibit). This development, when proposed, received extensive

opposition from the area’s residents and the City of Phoenix Planning 
Commission unanimously voted against it. I oppose Mr. Schmille’s current 
proposed development for the same reasons the existing residents had regarding Deem 
Hills. Unfortunately, the City Council ignored the Planning Commission’s 
recommendation on Deem Hills and approved the rezoning request. The biggest 
difference between this proposed development and Deem Hills was that the Deem Hills 
development had a lower density (R1-18) and set a precedent of providing walled 
buffer zones between it and existing adjacent S-1 properties of 85 to 40 feet.
4) One of the reasons that came up during the Deer Valley Village meeting for why the 
proposed development was needed was because there is a housing shortage in the 
Phoenix metro area.  Recent research that I have conducted based on viewing the 
Maricopa County’s Assessors website shows that within two miles of 31st Ave. and 
Dynamite there are currently 14 housing developments currently under construction at 
this time.  The following table attempts to quantify the number of dwelling units that are 
currently being constructed.  The number of apartments and condominiums, of which 
there are many, could not be determined and are not included. The number of units in 
Union Park could also not be determined, but I would assume number in the hundreds.  
The development is extremely large and some phases are constructed. A table 
showing these developments is shown below.
Residential Dwelling Units Currently Under Construction 
Within 2 miles of Dynamite Blvd. and 31st Ave. 
SUBDIVISION 
LOT 
COUNT/DUs 
LOCATION 
ZONING 
Stetson Village II Apartments 
  
Happy Valley and 35th Ave 
RE-35 
Middle Vistas 
228 
I-17 and Dixileta 
various 
Avilla Canyon (condos or apartments) 
  
I17 and Oberlin 
R-3 
17 North 
250 
I17 and Oberlin 
R-3A 
Sterling Vista 
57 
I17 and Pinnacle Vista 
R1-8 
Ascend at Dynamite 
260 
I17 and Oberlin 
R-3A 
I17 and Jomax Apartments 
  
Jomax and I17 
R-3A 
Norterra PUD Parcel 21 
114 
Jomax and 19th Ave. 
PUD 
Norterra PUD Parcel 22 
156 
Jomax and Norterra Pkwy. 
PUD 
Norterra PUD Parcel 20 
110 
Jomax and 19th Ave. 
PUD 
Norterra PUD Parcel 19 
49 
Jomax and 21th Ave. 
PUD 
Union Park at Norterra 
Huge 
Happy Valley and 19th Ave. 
PUD 
Desert Dawn Estates 
9 
Bajada Dr and 33rd ave 
R-18 
Summit at Deem Hills 
43 
Dydnamite and 37th Ave. 
R-18 
TOTAL 
1,276 
  
  
Additionally, numerous other residential developments have been constructed recently 
in the area and may not be fully occupied.  These developments are not quantified in 
the above table.

As shown, Mr. Schmille’s proposed 14 additional housing units will barely make 
an impact when compared to the number already under construction. Mr. 
Schmille’s proposal for a zoning change will do little to alleviate the housing 
shortage and only serves to irritate the existing residents that live adjacent to the 
subject property for no overriding or valid reason.   
5)
Based on the Mr. Schmille’s revised sketch, 2-story homes are still proposed on the 
north property line of his property, two of which are directly in a line of sight to my pool 
and patio. The reason as to why Mr. Schmille needs four 2-story homes as part of 
his development at the locations he has chosen is suspect at best, especially 
when he has eliminated all the rest. The vast majority of the tract homes that have 
been constructed, or are under construction, are single-story dwelling units. An 
exception are those constructed in Norterra Pointe on the north side of Dynamite. These 
homes, however, do not overlook any existing S-1 property.
6) Mr. Schmille’s proposed development will lower our property values. A tract 
development, like the one proposed, in the middle of a semi-rural area will do nothing 
for the property values for those that live there already. Will the City or developer be 
reimbursing us for the money that each of us in the surrounding area have 
invested?
7) The General Plan is just what it says "GENERAL". It is a tool to be used by the
City for infrastructure planning. Apparently, the City revised the General Plan in 2015.  I
was never been asked for my input by the City regarding a General Plan amendment in 
my area. Were others?  While Mr. Schmille’s proposed development may be consistent 
with the General Plan as written, there are still a number of overriding factors to be 
considered as outlined herein.  I personally have better things to do than being drawn in 
to these endless hearings, writing letters and having to fight against someone that 
wants to come in and change the rules, make a lot money and leave. Trust me, I have 
plenty of other things to do.  
8) I find nothing in the zoning ordinance that states that the S-1 zoning 
designation is no lesser a zoning designation than any other zoning designation.
This statement was made in the previous hearing.  I would like to know where in the 
City’s statutes that this statement is written.
9)  Regardless of what type of development is constructed, I would expect that 
development of the property will not inconvenience me in any way and will not cost me 
any money out-of-pocket to mitigate adverse impacts because of it.  The following at a 
minimum:
a) Two-story or greater residential units are prohibited.
b) Removal and replacement of the existing fence between the adjacent properties
and Mr. Schmille’s with an attractive 8-foot high CMU block wall that does not 
require painting and extends along my 300’+/- southern property line.

c) Installation of privacy landscaping consisting of some type of vegetation that is 
capable of growing up to a minimum 10 to 12 feet in height.
d) Modification of my existing irrigation system to adequately irrigate the new 
vegetation.
e) Any street lighting shall be low level lighting only is required.
f)
Provide all of the labor required for the above-described improvements.
Opposing this proposed zoning change has a huge impact on the current S-1 residents,
and battling this proposal has been an incredibly time consuming effort for me and my 
neighbors that we did not ask for. Again, I have no opposition to a residential project if 
Mr. Schmille wishes to construct one single-story house per acre as the current S-1
zoning regulation stipulates.
Sincerely,
Fred Renn
28036 N. 31st Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85083

+
–
600ft
600ft
-112.129190 33.735937 Degrees

Address or Intersection
Home
FAQ
Contact Us
Help
Version 3.4
Maricopa County Assessor's OfØce
Parcel Viewer
Draw
Step 1: Select a tool to draw with:
Step 2: Select a preset symbol to use:
Preview:
Color:
Style:
Solid
Transparency:
Width:
Show Measurements
Undo
Redo
Clear
Opaque
Transparent
0%
50%
100%
7
Press down to
start and let go
to Ønish