Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-65-20-6.pdf

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Camelback East Village Planning 
Committee Meeting Date 
July 6, 2021 
Planning Commission Hearing Date 
August 5, 2021 
Request From: 
P-1 (Parking District – Passenger Automobile
Parking, Limited) (1.38 acres) and C-2
(Intermediate Commercial District) (1.85 acres)
Request To: 
PUD (3.23 acres) 
Proposed Use 
Multifamily residential development 
Location 
Approximately 180 feet south of the southeast 
corner of 7th Street and Palo Verde Lane 
Owner 
Phoenix 7th Street, LLC, SW Behavioral 
Services, and 5727 N 7th Street, LLC 
Applicant/Representative 
ORB Architecture, LLC 
Staff Recommendation 
Approval, subject to stipulations 
General Plan Conformity 
General Plan Land Use Map Designation 
Commercial 
Street Map Classification 
7th Street 
Major Arterial 
40-foot east half street
8th Place 
Local 
30-foot west half street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND 
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and 
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to 
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation 
alternatives exist. 
The proposal seeks to convert a site that currently houses an office building and an 
underutilized surface parking lot into a multifamily residential development, which will 
provide more housing options for residents in the area and will support the existing 
commercial corridor along 7th Street.   
Attachment B

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 2 of 13 
 
 
 
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN 
PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system, 
development should be designed to include increased amenities for transit, 
pedestrian and bicyclists such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider 
sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding. 
 
This PUD seeks to improve the pedestrian environment along both its street frontages 
with larger separation between the sidewalk and the back of curb to better buffer from 
vehicular traffic. It also includes standards for robust tree plantings to provide shade for 
pedestrians, as well as human-scale building design along the streets for an improved 
interaction between pedestrians and the build environment. 
 
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES CORE VALUE; CERTAINTY & 
CHARACTER; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Protect and enhance the character of each 
neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new development that is 
compatible in scale, design, and appearance. 
 
The proposed PUD incorporates design elements from the surrounding neighborhood 
and sets forth standards to ensure that the increase in density of the site is mitigated by 
an appropriate building mass transition from both street frontages. The primary frontage 
on a major arterial street features a modern urban design that protects pedestrians from 
the high volumes of traffic. The secondary frontage on a local street is characterized by 
walk-up townhome units that are separated from the overall multifamily development 
and are thus compatible in scale and character to the adjacent neighborhood to the 
east. Further, the existing building on the site is four stories tall, with a maximum height 
of 48 feet, so the proposed development will improve the height transition from the 
public rights-of-way. 
 
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREE AND SHADE; 
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: New development should minimize surface parking areas 
and provide an abundance of shade through either trees or structures on any 
planned parking areas. 
 
The proposed PUD narrative includes landscaping standards that exceed those set 
forth in the Zoning Ordinance to provide robust tree shade coverage on the pedestrian 
realm. Further, the PUD does not permit surface parking areas and will provide all 
required parking within a fully enclosed garage that is interior to the site.

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 3 of 13 
 
 
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives 
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 11. 
 
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 12. 
 
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 13. 
 
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 14.  
 
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 15. 
 
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning  
 
Land Use 
Zoning 
On Site 
Office, parking lot 
P-1, C-2 
North 
Multifamily residences, retail shops, 
restaurants 
P-1, R-3, C-2 
South 
Office, behavioral health facility, parking lot, 
multifamily residences 
P-1, R-3, C-2 
East 
Behavioral health facility, multifamily 
residences, parking 
R-3, C-2, P-1 
West 
Lumber yard, retail, equipment rental 
C-2 
 
Background/Issues/Analysis 
 
SUBJECT SITE 
1. 
This request is to rezone a 
3.23-acre site located 
approximately 180 feet south of 
the southeast corner of 7th 
Street and Palo Verde Lane 
from P-1 (Parking District – 
Passenger Automobile Parking, 
Limited) (1.38 acres) and C-2 
(Intermediate Commercial 
District) (1.85 acres) to PUD 
(Planned Unit Development) to 
allow multifamily residential. 
Zoning Map 
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 4 of 13 
 
 
2. 
The site has a General Plan 
Land Use Map designation of 
Commercial. This same 
designation extends to the 
north, south, and west of the 
site. To the east of the 
subject site, the designation 
is Residential 10 to 15 
dwelling units per acre. 
The PUD is not consistent 
with the Commercial General 
Plan Land Use Map 
designation, as the proposed 
density exceeds that which is 
permitted for multifamily 
developments in a 
commercial zoning 
district. However, a General 
Plan Amendment is not 
needed as the site does not 
exceed 10 acres in size. 
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING 
3. 
The subject site is currently occupied by a four-story office building and a one to 
two story office building zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District); and a 
surface parking lot which is zoned P-1 (Parking District – Passenger Automobile 
Parking, Limited). The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: 
NORTH 
To the north, along Palo Verde Drive, there are a variety of existing uses. The 
western portion of the street is occupied by retail businesses and offices that are 
zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District). Mid-block, there is a surface parking 
lot zoned P-1 (Parking District – Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited), and to 
the east, closer to 8th Place, are single-story apartment buildings zoned R-3 
(Multifamily Residence District) 
SOUTH 
South of the subject site is a similar mixture of zoning districts. Immediately south of 
the site, on the 8th Place side, is a surface parking lot zoned P-1 (Parking District – 
Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited) and, just to the south, single-story 
apartment buildings zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District). Along 7th Street, 
south of the subject site, are office and retail buildings zoned C-2 (Intermediate 
Commercial District). 
General Plan Land Use Map 
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development 
Department

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 5 of 13 
 
 
EAST 
East of the site, across 8th place, are single-story apartment buildings zoned R-3 
(Multifamily Residence District). 
WEST 
West of the site, across 7th Street, are retail businesses, including a lumber yard, 
appliance store, and equipment rental facility zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial 
District). 
 
The proposed PUD is consistent with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts 
and will provide additional housing options in the community. Further, the proposal 
is consistent with the scale of the existing building on the site. 
Existing Site Conditions 
Source: Google Street View

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 6 of 13 
 
 
PROPOSAL 
4. 
The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation. The Planned 
Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to 
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a 
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes 
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case 
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the 
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied. 
5. 
The development standards contained within the PUD were developed to account 
for the unique configuration of the lot, which has two street frontages. The primary 
frontage is along 7th Street, which is classified as a major arterial street in the City 
of Phoenix Street Classification Map. The secondary frontage is to the east on 8th 
Place, which is a local street. These two streets have very different streetscapes 
and levels of traffic volume, and the standards set forth in this PUD are intended to 
maximize the use of the site while providing a transition between a major arterial 
street and local street. 
6. 
The PUD proposes development standards designed to accommodate a five-story 
multifamily residential building with a maximum height of 56 feet and a maximum of 
260 dwelling units, at a maximum total density of 80.5 dwelling units per gross acre. 
Per the conceptual site plan included in the PUD narrative, resident and guest 
parking spaces will be located within a fully enclosed parking garage on the ground 
floor of the building, with the main entry driveway located on 7th Street. This 
configuration will reduce the number of existing driveways along 7th Street from two 
to a single point of ingress and egress. The main parking garage will not have any 
vehicular access from 8th Place, where six individual townhome units will have their 
own access via private driveways and garages.     
Conceptual Ground Floor Site Plan 
Source: ORB Architecture

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 7 of 13 
 
 
The standards contained in this PUD are based on the Zoning Ordinance standards 
for the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, Transect T5:5, with modifications to account for 
the unique nature of the site. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the 
subject site as described in the attached PUD narrative date stamped June 4, 2021. 
Standard 
Proposed 
Density 
80.5 du/ac 
Building Height 
56 feet maximum 
27 feet maximum within 40 feet of property 
line along 8th Place (townhouses) 
37 feet maximum within 40 feet of property 
line along 7th Street 
Building Setbacks 
  Primary Frontage (7th Street) 
20 feet maximum 
  Side Lot Lines 
5 feet minimum 
  Secondary Frontage (8th Place) 
13 feet minimum 
Maximum Lot Coverage 
75 percent maximum 
Parking Setbacks 
  Primary Frontage (7th Street) 
30 feet minimum or behind building 
  Side Lot Lines 
5 feet minimum or behind building 
  Secondary Frontage (8th Place) 
5 feet minimum or behind building 
  Driveway Widths (8th Place) 
Maximum 20 feet 
Parking 
  
Residents 
1.3 spaces per studio unit 
1.5 spaces per 1- and 2-bedroom units 
2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom units 
  Loading Spaces 
Minimum 1 loading space 
  
Bicycle 
     Residential 
Minimum 0.25 spaces per unit (maximum 
50 spaces). 50 spaces minimum secured 
within bike repair room. 8 spaces minimum 
near primary building entries. 
      Non-Residential 
Per WU Code T5:5 standards 
Frontage Types 
Primary and Secondary Frontages 
Per Section 1305.B.1 
Entry Primary Frontage 
Minimum 3 entries along primary frontage 
Entry Secondary Frontage 
No common entries permitted. Entries 
along this frontage are for individual private 
residences.

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 8 of 13 
 
 
This PUD proposes a mixture of height restrictions along both primary and 
secondary street frontages to break up the overall mass of the building while 
creating a pedestrian environment that is at the human scale. Along its primary 
frontage on 7th Street, the building will have a maximum height of 37 feet within 40 
feet of the property line. Along the secondary frontage, on 8th Place, the maximum 
building height shall be 27 feet within 40 feet of the property line, where the 
individual residential townhome units will be located. This staggered height 
approach along the rights-of-way will help minimize the impact of the overall 
building height on the surrounding neighborhood. 
 
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 
7. 
The PUD sets forth enhanced landscape standards that aim to provide a superior 
pedestrian environment, with an emphasized focus on the 7th Street frontage. Due 
to the high intensity of vehicular traffic on 7th Street, a minimum 8-foot-wide 
landscape strip shall be provided between the sidewalk and back of curb to buffer 
pedestrians from the adjacent street. This landscape area shall be planted with 30 
percent minimum three-inch caliper trees, and the rest minimum two-inch caliper 
trees. A minimum of 75 percent shade at tree maturity shall be provided along the 
sidewalk to ensure a thermally comfortable pedestrian environment, as well as 75 
percent live groundcover of all landscape areas to help reduce the urban heat 
island effect. 
SIGNAGE STANDARDS 
8. 
The proposed signage standards within this PUD shall conform with the standards 
set forth in Section 1308 of the Zoning Ordinance, with one modification for 
projecting signs. Due to the project’s location on a major arterial street, where there 
are is a high volume of traffic travelling at high speeds, and the distance of the 
Conceptual Site Plan 
Source: ORB Architecture

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 9 of 13 
 
 
building from the street, the PUD proposes a maximum projecting sign area of 60 
square feet. Section 1308 of the Zoning Ordinance limits projecting signs to 6 
square feet, so the proposal is ten times larger than what is allowed by code. Staff 
is not supportive of the proposed projecting signage size and is recommending a 
modification to the PUD narrative to reduce the maximum allowed sign to 30 square 
feet, which is consistent with signage standards approved through the Zoning 
Adjustment Hearing Officer process for similar developments in the city. This is 
addressed in Stipulation No. 1.d. 
DESIGN GUIDELINES 
9. 
The PUD contains a variety of 
design guidelines addressing 
building facades, which are 
intended to enhance the 
visual interest of the 
structures, provide a 
pedestrian scale environment, 
and provide a high-quality 
design that draws inspiration 
from the surrounding 
neighborhood. Guidelines 
include architectural 
embellishments such as 
textural changes, pilasters, 
offsets, overhang canopies, 
among others; enhanced 
building materials which 
include horizontal wood siding 
(this pays homage to the local 
lumber business located 
nearby) and vertical features 
that create shade and visual 
interest, and various 
architectural accents. 
Further architectural enhancement and appropriate building massing is required by 
the base zoning district that this PUD seeks to follow, which is the T5:5 district of 
the Walkable Urban Code. This is a form-based code that emphasizes the 
importance of a building’s relationship to the pedestrian realm and therefore sets 
forth design standards that exceed other conventional zoning districts. 
10. 
Staff’s final review of the hearing draft of the proposed PUD development narrative 
identified two minor corrections that are needed for consistency and clarity. The first 
is on page 10 of the narrative, in the Development Standards Table, under Parking 
Conceptual Renderings 
Source: ORB Architecture 
Note: This rendering does not accurately reflect the 
proposed streetscape sidewalk standards for 7th Street.

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 10 of 13 
 
 
Setbacks. The 8th Place frontage is being referred to as a “Rear Lot Line.” To 
remain consistent with the terminology throughout the narrative, staff is 
recommending that this be changed to “Secondary Frontage,” which is addressed 
in Stipulation No. 1.b. The second correction is on page 12, where the narrative 
refers to Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance for signage standards. The correct 
section is 1308, a correction that is noted in Stipulation No. 1.c. 
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES 
11. 
Housing Phoenix Plan 
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This 
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with 
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing 
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid 
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a 
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development 
supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by 
providing an opportunity for high density residential development. 
12. 
Tree and Shade Master Plan 
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as 
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and 
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can 
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff, 
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and 
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and 
vibrant pedestrian places. The proposed PUD narrative includes standards for 
enhanced streetscape landscaping, especially along 7th Street, where a wide 
landscape buffer, with large-caliper shade trees, will be provided between the 
sidewalk and back of curb. Additional large caliper trees will be planted between the 
sidewalk and the building, as well as along the secondary street frontage, to provide 
a minimum of 75 percent shade along all pedestrian pathways at maturity. 
13. 
Complete Streets Guiding Principles 
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding 
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an 
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as 
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The proposed PUD narrative sets forth 
development and landscape standards that will provide a safe pedestrian 
environment along both of its street frontages. Further, the development will provide 
bicycle amenities such as bike lockers, racks, and a repair station. 
14. 
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan 
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to 
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 11 of 13 
 
 
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term 
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations. 
The proposal incorporates standards for bicycle parking for residents and guests, 
and a bicycle repair station. 
15. 
Zero Waste PHX 
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to 
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental 
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and 
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance expand its recycling and other waste 
diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes 
standards to encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, 
commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The proposed 
development will provide recycling areas for residents. 
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY 
16. 
At the time this staff report was written, staff received 11 public inquiry letters with 
questions about the details of the development, and concerns regarding the height, 
density, and traffic circulation and generation. Some of the community members 
who submitted these concerns later sent in one letter of support as a group after 
having worked with the applicant to address their comments. 
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 
17. 
Fire Prevention Division, Fire Department  
Fire Prevention does not anticipate problems with the referenced case. However, 
the site and or buildings shall comply with the 2018 IFC with Phoenix Amendments. 
Specifically, Fire Apparatus Access from CH 5 for turning radius, turnarounds, and 
dead ends. Currently the water supply (gpm and psi) for the referenced case is 
unknown. The water supply is required to meet fire flow as defined by Appendix B 
of the 2018 IFC with Phoenix Amendments.  
18. 
Floodplain Management Division, Public Works Department 
Floodplain Management determined that this parcel is not in a Special Flood 
Hazard Area (SFHA), but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 1740 L of the 
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. 
19. 
Public Transit Department 
The Public Transit Department has required that clearly defined, accessible 
pedestrian pathways be provided to connect all main site elements and public 
sidewalks, and, where they intersect drive aisles, they be constructed of materials 
that visually contrast with parking surfaces. The department further required that all 
pedestrian sidewalks be shaded to 75 percent at tree maturity. These standards 
have been incorporated into the PUD narrative as regulatory standards. The 
department also required that all cross-access agreements incorporate a pedestrian 
pathway, which is addressed in Stipulation No. 2.

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 12 of 13 
 
 
 
Findings 
 
1. 
The proposed PUD will redevelop an office and surface parking lot to provide a high 
quality multifamily residential development which will help alleviate the housing 
shortage in Phoenix. 
2. 
The proposed land use intensity is appropriate at this location along a major arterial 
street and in close proximity to a variety of commercial uses. 
3. 
The proposed PUD sets forth building height standards that provide a transition 
along both of its frontages to create a pedestrian scale environment. 
 
Stipulations 
 
1. 
An updated Development Narrative for the Broadstone on 7th PUD reflecting the 
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and 
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.  
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development 
Narrative date stamped June 4, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations: 
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the   
following: Hearing draft submittal: June 4, 2021; City Council adopted: [Add  
adoption date]. 
b. Page 10, Development Standards Table, Parking Setbacks: Please replace  
“Rear Lot Line (8th Place)” with “Secondary Frontage (8th Place).” 
20. 
Street Transportation Department 
The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer dedicate a 
10-foot-wide sidewalk easement along the east side of 7th Street, submit a traffic 
impact statement prior to preliminary approval of plans, and that the developer 
construct all streets within and adjacent to the development. These improvements 
shall comply with all ADA accessibility guidelines. These requirements are 
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 
21. 
Archaeology 
The site is not designated as archaeologically sensitive. However, should 
archaeological materials be encountered during construction, the developer shall 
immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the 
discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to 
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 6. 
22. 
Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances. 
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal 
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be 
required.

Staff Report: Z-65-20-6 
June 28, 2021 
Page 13 of 13 
 
 
c. Page 12, Signage Standards: Replace “Walkable Urban Code Section  
1309” with “Walkable Urban Code Section 1308” to reference the correct  
Zoning Ordinance section. 
d. Page 12, Signage Standards Table, Projecting Sign: Revise the maximum  
sign area to 30 square feet. 
2. 
All cross-access agreements shall incorporate a pedestrian pathway, as approved 
by the Planning and Development Department. 
3. 
The developer shall dedicate a 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement on the east side of 
7th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
4. 
The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No 
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and 
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a 
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the 
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development 
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street 
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.  
5. 
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development 
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other 
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines. 
6. 
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the 
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot 
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the 
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials. 
 
Writer 
Sofia Mastikhina 
June 28, 2021 
 
Team Leader 
Samantha Keating 
 
Exhibits 
Sketch map 
Aerial sketch map 
Community Correspondence (26 Pages) 
Broadstone on 7th PUD date stamped June 4, 2021

Z-277-83
Z-111-89
Z-137-84
Z-127-83
*
*
R-5
PAD-15
C-2
R-4
P-1
P-1
R1-6
R-3
P-1
C-O
R-3
C-2
R-3
SAN MIGUEL AVE
PALO VERDE DR
9TH ST
MONTEBELLO AVE
NO NAME
7TH ST
6TH ST
8TH PL
7TH ST
24TH ST
40TH ST
32ND ST
16TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
48TH ST
56TH ST
64TH ST
SR 51
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-65-20
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
3.23 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
*   Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
P-1, C-2
PUD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
N/A, 27
260
*   UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A, 32
N/A
ORB Architecture, LLC
DATE:
1/26/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 20-29
ZONING MAP
I-8
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: P-1 ( 1.38 a.c.)
C-2 ( 1.85 a.c.)
TO:
PUD ( 3.23 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-65-20.mxd
Z-65-20
0.045
0
0.045
0.0225
Miles
6/7/2021

Z-277-83
Z-111-89
Z-137-84
Z-127-83
*
*
R-5
PAD-15
C-2
R-4
P-1
P-1
R1-6
R-3
P-1
C-O
R-3
C-2
R-3
SAN MIGUEL AVE
PALO VERDE DR
9TH ST
MONTEBELLO AVE
NO NAME
7TH ST
6TH ST
8TH PL
Maricopa County Assessor's
7TH ST
24TH ST
40TH ST
32ND ST
16TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
48TH ST
56TH ST
64TH ST
SR 51
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-65-20
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
3.23 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
*   Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
P-1, C-2
PUD
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
N/A, 27
260
*   UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A, 32
N/A
ORB Architecture, LLC
DATE:
1/26/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 20-29
ZONING MAP
I-8
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: P-1 ( 1.38 a.c.)
C-2 ( 1.85 a.c.)
TO:
PUD ( 3.23 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-65-20.mxd
Z-65-20
0.045
0
0.045
0.0225
Miles
6/7/2021

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
George Pasquel <george@witheymorris.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:31 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
FW: 5727 N. 7th St PUD
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Sofia – see below email of support for North Central Phx Home Owners Association.  See you tonight.  
 
From: Mary Crozier <marycrz@cox.net>  
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:45 AM 
To: George Pasquel <george@witheymorris.com> 
Subject: Re: 5727 N. 7th St PUD 
 
George, 
I had planned to speak tomorrow but I am out of town unexpectedly and won’t be back until Wednesday. 
If you would like to submit my comments in my absence, please do so.  If this is the first of two meetings with the 
Camelback East Village, I can make comments at the next one. 
 
Dear Members of the Camelback East Village Committee: 
 
I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the developer and Withey Morris for including our neighborhood 
group in the early and ongoing development process of this proposed PUD. 
 
This should be the template EVERY developer should execute when proposing a zoning change within close proximity to a 
residential area. Because there was open dialogue at the beginning, we were able to collaborate on a design that is 
supportive of what a PUD is supposed to be....a superior use of the land.  
 
We believe that the architectural design, setbacks and detached sidewalks will create an important and positive impact 
to 7th Street.  
 
As a result, we would like to express our support for this project. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Mary L. Crozier 
President 
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association 
 
Sent from my iPad

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 4:19 PM
To:
'sissons8@cox.net'; 'JD Kemper & David Cane'; dwool27@gmail.com
Cc:
'Darren Boyce'; 'Drew Forster'; 'Karen Boyce'
Subject:
RE: Application Z-65-20
Good afternoon, 
 
I checked our records and the only permits I see for the Southwest Behavioral Health building reference repair 
to fire damage. As I stated earlier, the earlier Broadstone apartments have yet to be approved, so building 
permits cannot be issued for their development. 
 
I do have an update regarding meeting dates. This case is scheduled to go before the Camelback East Village 
Planning Committee on March 2, 2021 for an informational presentation. This will be purely for informational 
purposes and for the applicant to receive feedback from the committee and from members of the community to 
incorporate into their development narrative. The agenda, with instructions on how to participate, will be posted 
here two weeks before the meeting date. 
 
The applicant has not yet provided a second submittal. The narrative I linked in my original email is still the 
only one we have on file. 
 
Please let me know if you have further questions. 
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
(she/her/hers) What is this? 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: sissons8@cox.net <sissons8@cox.net>  
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 9:18 AM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; 'JD Kemper & David Cane' <jeron.kemper@gmail.com>; 
dwool27@gmail.com 
Cc: 'Darren Boyce' <darren@boycecomponents.com>; 'Drew Forster' <dforster@loyola.edu>; 'Karen Boyce' 
<kdkboyce@cox.net> 
Subject: RE: Application Z‐65‐20 
 
Sofia, thanks for your earlier response.  There seems to be activity at the site particularly at the Southwest Behavioral 
Health building.  Does that mean some approval has already been granted.  That seems to contradict your statement 
about no meetings dates nor times have been set.  
 
Can you please clarify?  Additionally, has the company provided a second application that  can be reviewed ahead of any 
Village Planning Committee, Planning Commission or City Council date?

2
From: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>  
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 1:54 PM 
To: sissons8@cox.net; JD Kemper & David Cane <jeron.kemper@gmail.com>; dwool27@gmail.com 
Cc: Darren Boyce <darren@boycecomponents.com>; Drew Forster <dforster@loyola.edu>; Karen Boyce 
<kdkboyce@cox.net> 
Subject: RE: Application Z‐65‐20 
 
Good afternoon, 
 
This PUD application has recently completed its first round of staff review (approximately 3-4 weeks). We are 
now waiting on a resubmittal of the development narrative, with staff’s comments incorporated. Once we 
receive the resubmittal, it will be another 2-3 weeks of staff review, and subsequent resubmittals and reviews 
will occur as needed until staff determined that the narrative is ready for hearings. At this point, we will provide 
the applicant with their Village Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council dates, which will 
be posted on the site. As this is a PUD request, not a conventional rezoning request, the applicant will also be 
required to hold an informational presentation at the Village Planning Committee, prior to coming back for a 
recommendation and a vote. You can find more information regarding the processes and timelines of a PUD 
request here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00590.pdf. 
 
A copy of the applicant’s first submittal can be accessed here: 
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/Z-65-20n.pdf. 
 
At this time, no meeting dates have been set. 
 
Please let me know if you have further questions. 
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
(she/her/hers) What is this? 
[mypronouns.org] 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: sissons8@cox.net <sissons8@cox.net>  
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 2:32 PM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; JD Kemper & David Cane <jeron.kemper@gmail.com>; 
dwool27@gmail.com 
Cc: Darren Boyce <darren@boycecomponents.com>; Drew Forster <dforster@loyola.edu>; Karen Boyce 
<kdkboyce@cox.net> 
Subject: Application Z‐65‐20 
 
Sofia, the ORB Architecture firm has identified you as the Planner assigned to this case.  In their letter from last month, 
they have indicated no meetings nor hearings are currently scheduled on the project which involves property located at 
5717, 5727 & 5733 N. 7th Street.  They are wanting to rezone the area for a Planned Unit Development district with 
development of “260 high‐end residential units”. 
 
Can you provide us an update on the project and the tentative timing for this planned change?  You can reach me at 
602‐999‐6803.

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Marlana Murdock <marlana.murdock@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, February 8, 2021 8:13 PM
To:
rab@orbarch.com
Cc:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Broadstone on 7th
Hello, Rich 
 
Thank you for the information on the proposed project on North 7th Street. I am a homeowner behind the 
Culinary Dropout parking lot. As you are aware our neighborhood association and the residents of our 
neighborhood are very aware of the development and environmental impact issues and new residential or 
commercial businesses will cause. 
 
I have a few questions -  
 
Our backyard view of Piestwa Peak will be directly impacted and obscured by this development causing 
considerable blight in our backyard and affecting our home value. How does Alliance Residential plan to 
remedy these issues for surrounding homeowners?  
 
What is the need for more multifamily dwellings in the area - I work in multifamily development and 
currently the occupancy in this neighborhood is far from at capacity.  
 
We will not allow a standard traffic light to be installed at the intersection of Montebello and 7th due to 
environmental and noise impact issues directly affecting our health and home values. How will over 500 
automobiles be managed at this property without causing an impact on the quiet enjoyment 
of the homeowners and property values? 
 
Lastly, it seems as if there is a considerable amount of concrete and very little landscaping or greenery to 
enhance the 7th street facade - how does Alliance Residential plan to improve this aspect of the design and 
avoid building another cookie-cutter multi-family development for short-term dwellers? 
 
Thank you, 
 
Marlana Murdock

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net>
Sent:
Friday, February 26, 2021 12:22 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina; Erin A Morris
Subject:
Camelback East meeting 02 Mar 2021
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Good day - 
 
- I have concerns regarding the proposed apartment complex on 7th Street (between Montebello and Palo 
Verde, South of Bethany Home). 
 
- The zoning sign states 268 apartments are proposed. This means about 400 parking spaces are required. I 
would like to see the current barrier to 8th Place be left intact. This would prevent entry/exit from the property 
from 8th Place as it is now. 
 
- 8th Place is an older narrow street with -five- apartment complexes on the block now. There is insufficient 
parking on the street today, as evidenced by the number of cars parked on the curbs on any given day. The 
loss of any parking would magnify parking problems beyond those existing today. 
 
- Next would be the inclusion of a new Verizon cell tower on the proposed apartment property. Verizon has 
promised a new tower for this area for years. Verizon has referred to the area as a 'cell hole' to me for those 
years (poor service is well known here). Considering the recent denial of a new Verizon cell tower at 3rd St & 
Bethany, this would benefit the entire area with no harm to the proposed complex. 
 
- I have lived in the area since 1979, and on this street since 1986. 
 
- If you have any questions, fell free to contact me at your convenience. 
 
Thank you 
 
. 
Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
.

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Larry Whitesell <thepeakhomeassoc@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:07 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Cc:
Mary Crozier
Subject:
Reply to Mary Crozier re "Quick question"
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Good morning Sophia ‐ 
Mary Crozier forwarded to me your reply to the question of why the building at 5727 N 7th St is 4 stories high. Could you 
give me information about the text amendment that changed the allowable height from 4 stories to 2 stories or 30 feet? 
What was the text amendment number and date of the council meeting during which the TA was approved? I'll be 
happy to submit a PRR but I really don't know what date range to include in the PRR. 
 
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. 
 
Larry Whitesell, Co‐chair 
the PEAK NA 
602‐370‐8453

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:36 PM
To:
Mary Crozier
Cc:
Samantha Keating; Larry Whitesell
Subject:
RE: Quick question
Attachments:
Ordinance G-3140.pdf; 1988  Zoning Ordinance as Amended 8 31 1988.pdf
Good afternoon Mary, 
 
I looked through our historical Zoning Ordinances and was able to determine when the height restriction in the 
C-2 district was modified. As I stated in a previous email, the height restriction was 4 stories and 48 feet in the 
1980 Zoning Ordinance. This standard stayed the same until 1988, when it was modified to 2 stories and 30 
feet UNLESS the structure was: 
 
1. In a core area as defined in the General Plan 2. Was along Central Avenue between Camelback Road and 
Harrison Street, or 3. Was on a property that was rezoned prior to June 15, 1988 and was subject to a City 
Council stipulated site plan. 
 
If a property met one of these three criteria, it could request to have a height of 4 stories and 56 feet. Please 
see the attached excerpt. This change was done through Text Amendment No. Z-TA-1-88, and was approved 
by the City Council on June 15, 1988 with Ordinance G-3140 (attached). This is fairly consistent with today's 
Zoning Ordinance, which permits a height up to 56 feet in the C-2 district, subject to a Height Waiver rezoning 
request, and subject to the same three criteria listed above. If you look in the text in G-3140, the following 
statement was added to the beginning of the Yard, Height and Area Requirements for the district: 
 
"To protect surrounding neighborhoods and preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for 
yard, height and area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses and 
adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General Plan for uses and intensities 
within core areas, greater heights and intensities are herein encouraged." 
 
Please let me know if you have additional questions. 
 
Best regards, 
 
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
(she/her/hers) What is this? 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648 
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Mary Crozier <info@ncpha.org>  
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:18 AM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Re: Quick question

2
Sofia, 
 
I’m sorry for giving you additional work.  We are working with the developer to come up with the best design for 
a potential multi-family complex on 7th St. Since it will be the first one north of Missouri we really want it to be 
spectacular and enhance the area. 
 
Again, I am so grateful. 
 
Mary 
 
> On Feb 9, 2021, at 9:52 AM, Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
>  
> Good morning Mary, 
>  
> I will do some digging through our historical zoning ordinances to determine when the height limitation was 
changed and will hopefully be able to provide you with an answer soon. 
>  
> Best, 
>  
> Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
> (she/her/hers) What is this? 
> Planner II - Village Planner 
> City of Phoenix 
> Long Range Planning 
> Office: 602-256-5648  
> 200 West Washington Street 
> Phoenix, AZ 85003 
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mary Crozier <info@ncpha.org>  
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:03 PM 
> To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
> Cc: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
> Subject: Re: Quick question 
>  
> Sofia and Samantha, 
>  
> Thank you so much.  How odd that the allowable height was 48’ in 1983.  Do you know when it was reduced 
to 30’ and was that because the City wanted this to feel more like a neighborhood? 
>  
> Mary 
>  
>> On Feb 8, 2021, at 4:48 PM, Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
>>  
>> Good afternoon Mary, 
>>  
>> It looks like the building was built some time in late 1983, early 1984. The site plan for the 4-story office 
building was approved on 8/16/83 (see attached), which means that the development of the site was subject to 
the Zoning Ordinance from that year. At the time, the most recent Zoning Ordinance was the 1980 version, 
which allowed a building height of 4 stories and 48 feet (see excerpt attached) in the C-2 district. Now it is 
considered a legal nonconforming structure as the height regulations for this district have changed, as you 
noted below, to a maximum of 2 stories and 30 feet. 
>>  
>> Please let me know if you have further questions.

3
>>  
>> Best regards, 
>>  
>> Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
>> (she/her/hers) What is this? 
>> Planner II - Village Planner 
>> City of Phoenix 
>> Long Range Planning 
>> Office: 602-256-5648  
>> 200 West Washington Street 
>> Phoenix, AZ 85003 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>  
>> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:26 PM 
>> To: Mary Crozier <info@ncpha.org> 
>> Cc: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
>> Subject: RE: Quick question 
>>  
>> Good afternoon Mary - We would be happy to check into this for you. 
>>  
>> Sofia - Please see Mary's question below.  Could you please take a look at the history of the site?   
>>  
>> Thank you, 
>> Samantha Keating 
>> Principal Planner 
>> Long Range Planning 
>> Office: 602-262-6823  
>> 200 West Washington Street 
>> Phoenix, AZ 85003 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Mary Crozier <info@ncpha.org>  
>> Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:40 PM 
>> To: Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
>> Subject: Quick question 
>>  
>> If all of 7th St. from Missouri to Northern is C-2 with a maximum height of 30’, why is the glass office 
building at 5727 N. 7th St. 4 stories tall? Did they get a variance or exception?  
>>  
>> I cannot seem to research the zoning history on this. We are working with the developer on the proposed 
PUD there and just trying to understand why this building is so much taller than everyone else. 
>>  
>> Thanks. 
>>  
>> Mary 
>> <Pages from ZONING  1980   Zoning Ordinance as Amended   2 19 1980.pdf><5727 N 7th St Site 
Plan.pdf> 
>

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Larry Whitesell <thepeakhomeassoc@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:48 PM
To:
Megan Sheets
Cc:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Re: Z-69-20
Attachments:
201102 PA-01 SITE PLAN_COLOR.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Megan ‐ 
Thank you for replying to my question.  
 
To clarify, a developer of a 16 unit multi‐family community is currently planning to use City collection (not sure if it's 
trash or recycling) one day a week with residents putting 16 containers on the street between the curb and a bike lane. 
Trash or recycling (whatever the City isn't collecting) will be collected by a contracted service on another day resulting in 
16 containers being on the street twice every week.  
 
We are asking them to use a community dumpster with contracted collection as do all of the other multi‐family 
communities of similar size (fewer than 30 units) on that block of Maryland. We were told by the developers this is not 
possible because the trucks aren't allowed to back up. I found that questionable. There is not a current site plan that 
shows where a trash compound would be located. Attached is a preliminary site plan that does not include a trash 
compound. We think a compound would have the least impact on established residential use if it were located in the 
north‐east corner of the property but that is farthest away from ingress/egress to the street. 
 
Does the 50 foot restriction on backing up apply to commercial waste management providers as well as to City vehicles? 
 
Larry Whitesell, Co‐chair 
the PEAK NA 
602‐370‐8453 
 
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:07 PM Megan Sheets <megan.sheets@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
Larry, 
  
The maximum distance a truck can back up is 50 feet.  If you want to send a site plan, I can do a quick review 
to see if it will work.   
  
Thank you,

2
  
Megan Sheets 
Project Manager 
Public Works Department 
Working remotely 
Cell: 602.896.7751 
  
From: Larry Whitesell <thepeakhomeassoc@gmail.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:55 PM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Megan Sheets <megan.sheets@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Re: Z‐69‐20 
  
Thanks, Sofia. I look forward to hearing from Megan. 
Larry 
  
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:30 AM Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
Good afternoon Larry, 
  
I have copied Megan Sheets, who is the Solid Waste reviewer for our department and may have some 
further insight into this matter. Unfortunately this is out of my wheelhouse. 
  
Megan, would you be able to help with Mr. Whitesell’s question below? 
  
Best regards,

3
 
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
(she/her/hers) 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
  
  
From: Larry Whitesell <thepeakhomeassoc@gmail.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:47PM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Z‐69‐20 
  
Hi Sofia‐ 
Hopefully your day is going well. 
We have been in discussion with the applicants of case Z‐69‐20 and a question came up about trash collection. The 
solid waste department has answered a couple of questions but there is one that might fall under P&D. 
  
The neighborhood would prefer that the development have a community trash compound with contracted service. Is 
there any code, ordinance, resolution, policy, interpretation, or guideline that would prevent a contracted trash 
collection service from backing up the truck after collecting the trash?    
  
Thanks in advance for your help. 
  
Larry Whitesell, Co‐chair 
the PEAK NA 
602‐370‐8453

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
barry14@cox.net
Sent:
Tuesday, April 27, 2021 3:52 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Broadstone on 7th
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Good day Sofia - 
 
- I've had an opportunity to look over the new narrative you referred me to (and the company website at: www 
broadstoneon7th com). I do believe it is a real disservice to the public to remove the first filing versus leaving 
each filing in place, either numbered or dated. It appears this entire project is still in a design phase so seeing 
each filing becomes even more important. 
 
- I did have a chance to look over the Avery labels purporting to represent all those supposedly contacted. My 
landlord is there and he said he was never contacted. None of us as tenants were contacted. The apartment 
complex directly across 8th Place from the project has 33 units - while I did not read every label, it does not 
appear that any of those residents were contacted. 
 
- Our greatest concern is traffic and parking on 8th Pl. The street will lose 100% of parking on the West side of 
8th Pl if the townhomes are allowed to be constructed facing 8th Pl. The street is routinely packed with 
residents vehicles. The street itself is far too narrow by a minimum of 15 feet in width, in my estimation. Using 
the standard of 7 and 7 for parking and 12 and 12 for driving, for a total of 38 feet in width from curb to curb, 
which are marginal figures for safety of residents and vehicles alike. It needs to remain as it is now as the width 
was permitted to be from many years ago, with no way to widen the street being available. 
 
- The 27 foot height of the proposed townhomes facing 8th Pl is completely out of character of the entire 
nearby area. There are no other multi-story structures nearby. These townhomes need to face into the subject 
property and reduced in height if they are to be constructed at all.  
 
- Considering the number of residents expected to live here, and the traffic on 7th Street, it is expected many of 
those exiting the project will elect to turn to the North. Many will then turn on to Palo Verde and then 8th Pl to 
reach Montebello then on to 10th and 12th Streets. There is no traffic control at Montebello and 7th St. This 
again increases the risk to residents and vehicles of those living on 8th Place.  
 
- A far better solution is to block Palo Verde at a line extended South from the West wall of the townhomes to 
the North of our neighborhood (8th Pl does not go through to the North from Palo Verde). I've seen this 'no 
through traffic' solution done in a variety of places here in Phoenix over the years. 
 
- This solution is inexpensive, maintains full access to all commercial business in the area on both sides of 
Palo Verde, and provides the residents living on 8th Place a measure of increased safety as well. Those 
departing the Broadstone on 7th project can easily go up to Bethany Home. 
 
- These next thoughts are interior items and of less interest to residents of 8th Pl overall but raise the question 
of how this project is being handled by the City of Phoenix. Number of parking spaces seems quite low. No 
mention of the size of individual spaces is found. With a CoP space of 9.5 ft by 18 ft - I've seen far too many 
parking areas where spaces have been made narrower - risking my vehicle and personal safety. What are 
these spaces to be?

2
- I looked online and find quite a few articles about the increase in 'roommates' in living situations where rents 
have increased. Phoenix is said to be among the top cities where this is happening. I personally have known 
several non-couples sharing a studio space. This calls into question the number of spaces allotted for parking. 
This number needs to be a minimum of 1.7 / 1.8 spaces - per bed. 
 
- On the current posted narrative there are only four handicapped parking spaces shown on this entire project. 
The State of Arizona had released the information (two years ago) that Arizona Handicapped placards had 
more than doubled since 2010. I see many places that have not addressed this lack of parking (Fry's grocery 
at 20th St being a great example as this store will be one used by residents if this project). I drive a larger van 
as my mobility scooter is in the back. I do not see the CoP enforcing any parking requirements anywhere on 
this issue, number of HC spaces, the size of spaces, or the overall number spaces in parking areas. 
 
- I hope my comments are clear and consistent with the previous sketch I provided. If there are any questions, 
please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 
 
Thank you. 
 
. 
Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
.

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 28, 2021 5:20 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
narratives and filings
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Good day Sofia - 
 
- Thanks for the info. If there is anyone else I should contact - or you recommend contact me - please feel free 
to do so. 
 
- Apparently the change to the street from a 'through street' as it is now, to 'not a through street' might benefit 
from an explanation by the general way I submitted it. I'm happy to speak with whomever you feel is 
appropriate. 
 
- My real concerns are with the project near me and how it affects the neighborhood. These are primarily the 
traffic, parking, and safety impact. As such, contacting the property owners only and not requiring some 
'blanket' notification of residents - the ones who actually live in the area and are directly impacted by any 
project - seems to ignore residents automatically versus including all those whose living situation and even 
safety are being affected. Property owners would benefit as well as a change might make that property less 
desirable to tenants, buyers and customers when commercial property is involved. (The townhomes on 8th 
Place height being out of scale as the -only- two-story structures in the area is also a real concern, as I 
mentioned.) 
 
- Some form of notification needs to be implemented by address versus only by property ownership, which is 
exactly how we were left out of the process. 
 
- How does this change get implemented? Who needs contacting to get this done? 
 
- Next would be in regard to the posting of the narratives and everything else filed that applies to any particular 
project. No filing should ever be removed. The public's interests in what is proposed - including changes is 
critical for any number of reasons. I see the new narrative on Broadstone on 7th refers to the original filing, 
which was removed, so no way to examine it after the removal. This seems like an extraordinarily easy change 
to make. Policy? or ?? 
 
- How does this change get implemented? 
 
- Here's a little oddity to bring a smile. Every once in awhile I still get mail with my address -number- but the 
street portion as on 'Richland' versus 8th Pl. This is the name of the street South of Thomas. Odd, makes me 
wonder if the post office, or City keeps old records as reference. Similar to 8th Place NOT being a through 
street North of Palo Verde as shown on Google maps and elsewhere (blocked by gates). 
 
- Thanks again, keep me in the loop. 
 
. 
Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
.

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 11, 2021 2:20 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
RE: Camelback East meeting 06 May 2021
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Good day Sofia - 
 
- Thanks you for the info - I am pleased to see others see issues with the townhomes on 8th Place. 
 
- Has anything been done regarding the expected increase in traffic on 8th Place from the apartments 
themselves. Considering where the access is to the project, on 7th Street, as well as the volume of traffic on 
7th Street, and where those exiting the new complex will go. 
 
- The likely, easiest, path is what is causing our concerns over many more vehicles turning from 7th Street on 
to Palo Verde and down 8th Place. With the narrow width of 8th Place, and increase in traffic of any volume will 
create other problems and increase risks to the safety of residents.  
 
- We already see too many who use this path for unknown reasons, but at times traffic stopped at Montebello 
is backed up all the way to the corner of Palo Verde (and there is no stop sign at Montebello for 8th Place). 
The traffic increases on 8th Place and on Montebello occur at the same times. There is a number of vehicles 
parked on Montebello every day (restaurant employee parking for Mora Italian at 7th St & Montebello) which 
contributes to visibility issues. When there have been accidents on 7th Street the volume of cars on both 
Montebello and 8th Place increases even higher. 
 
- 8th Place is already too narrow for vehicles to comfortably pass by one another when legally parked vehicles 
are present. School buses also use 8th Place every school day. 
 
- The adjustment on Palo Verde by the construction of a barrier in line with the west wall of the large townhome 
complex (Bethany to the south, to Palo Verde) still seems to be the least disruptive to all commercial concerns 
on both sides of Palo Verde. It could be changed to one-way out from 8th Place similar to streets off of Central 
into the neighborhoods.  
 
- While that does not reduce the traffic as much as the preferred choice of a barrier, it would help some. This 
also preserves the residential nature of 8th Place as well as increase the safety to residents by limiting most 
traffic to residents of the street. 
 
- Thank you again - keep me updated. 
 
. 
Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
.

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net>
Sent:
Monday, June 7, 2021 3:42 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
RE: Broadstone on 7th and ...
Attachments:
C360DF41-AE3B-4D77-B55C-BAAD4B894637.jpeg
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Good day Sofia - 
 
- Thanks for the update. Not posted as of this moment - but I'm watching for it. 
 
- As for the public access page. I disagree completely that it would make it more difficult to navigate. As it is 
now, it is pretty much a good example of difficult to locate any info one is interested in. Funny thing - this is an 
example of why I was requested to participate in the creation of the original databases for: Our Superior Court, 
Justice Courts, Sec of State, Corp Comm over about 25 years ago. I've been asked to clarify and contribute 
language to proposed laws for our legislature too. I've created over 2,000 web pages - with the focus being on 
information versus entertainment. I began working in 'information' over 50 years ago in several fields, and that 
is still of great interest to me - how best to communicate with a particular group or industry.  
 
- Over 50% of the web work I've done has been re-do work. I've come to think of the difference in attitude and 
ability as being one of training and education. Most websites (and informational pages) are today being created 
by 'mechanics' (those who can create the page, operate the software, but have no awareness of 
'communications' or any real breadth of experience with various industries and their populations - they are 
quite simply not 'communicators' at all. These pages reflect this, for no good reason. 
 
- This page is a perfect example. 'Indexed' by the Z-number - how would any person, any member of the public 
know this number? and is therefore shut out - even after learning the name - and only then learning that Z-
number. This page should be indexed alphabetically correct, allowing any person in the public to find a project 
easily by simply using the information in public releases and news stories, which still meets industry needs. 
 
- Having spoken with several lawyers ... Once the filing has been made it becomes a part of the public record 
and removing it from the public view might actually be considered a violation of Arizona's public records laws. 
While it might be accessible on request - how would anyone know to make a request for it? Simply keeping it 
visible in the list and noted in some fashion, #1 etc, or some similar consistent notation solves it for everyone 
involved, as well as the law. 
 
- Overall, virtually every government public access page I have had the need to access is in similar condition - 
poorly designed and assembled. There is a huge amount of waste in evidence on government pages - huge 
amounts of wasted (and expensive) creation time and taxpayer's money - while not actually serving the public 
needs. 
 
- I will happily attend ANY meeting or assessment as might happen. Fat chance today. 
 
. 
 
- Okay, on to the street issue. I realized that if 8th/Palo Verde were simply blocked off / turned into a 'cul-de-
sac' essentially - the school buses that come through here would be forced to back up (we do have kids, 
bicyclists, and pedestrians - thus the safety issue of all the increase in traffic on 8th Place) - a situation to be 
avoided at all costs. So I've attached a photo I took yesterday showing what seems to resolve the access issue

2
on Palo Verde (still maintaining all commercial access) and still allows the school buses their multiple daily 
trips to continue their exit to 7th St. Preventing all the likely increase in traffic and accompanying increased risk 
from those leaving Broadstone on 7th remains the goal. 
 
- The photo shows a tactic that is being used more frequently in these situations as an alternative to completely 
blocking the street to 'through' traffic (as being done off Central South of Thomas Rd). If I recall this was the 
choice of the City in response to the increased threat of increased traffic. Questions - by all means ask me. 
 
- I'm going to break this here - and will send a second eMail on two issues that have come up during this 
search for information. 
 
Thanks again. 
 
. 
Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
. 
 
 
> On June 5, 2021 at 10:23 AM Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
>  
> Good morning Barry, 
>  
> I just wanted to provide you with an update regarding our last correspondence. I spoke with my supervisors 
and relayed your comments about the PUD projects page, and they indicated that they'd be open to your 
suggestion. However, given the number of drafts that typically come in for these cases, it might make the page 
more difficult to navigate. All development narrative drafts are part of the public record and can be provided to 
members of the public upon request. 
>  
> Also, we have received a resubmittal for the Broadstone on 7th PUD, which will be uploaded to the PUD 
webpage on Monday morning. I just sent in the request to upload this morning, as the submittal came in at the 
end of the day yesterday, but I doubt anyone is checking their emails on a Saturday স
হ
঺
঻ 
>  
> I am still waiting to hear from the Street Transportation team. They have been swamped. 
>  
> In the meantime, if you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. 
>  
> Best regards, 
>  
> Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
> (she/her/hers) 
> Planner II - Village Planner 
> City of Phoenix 
> Long Range Planning 
> Office: 602-256-5648  
> 200 West Washington Street 
> Phoenix, AZ 85003 
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Sofia Mastikhina  
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 6:45 PM 
> To: BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net> 
> Subject: RE: Broadstone on 7th and ... 
>

3
> Good evening Barry, 
>  
> I have forwarded your messages to the Street Transportation Department planner, Maja Brkovic 
(maja.brkovic@phoenix.gov), but have not heard back yet. We have seen a large influx of entitlement cases 
come in, so I'm sure she is just working on getting through all of them. I sent her a reminder today and will try 
to touch base tomorrow and provide you with further information. 
>  
> I have also forwarded your inquiry regarding the content on the city's website to my supervisor, as I am not 
sure how one would go about changing this staff procedure. As soon as I hear back, I will let you know. 
>  
> There are a few different places where you can find information on projects around the city. 
>  
> You are already familiar with the PUD page. There is also a page where we post the staff reports for 
"regular" rezoning cases (meaning they are rezoning to a standard zoning district, and not creating their own 
development narrative like a PUD). This page also includes staff reports for General Plan Amendments and 
Text Amendments. You can find those here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-
reports. 
>  
> One of the best tools to explore what developments are going on in the city is our interactive My Community 
Map. This allows you to navigate a map of the city either by typing in an address or just moving the map with 
your mouse. You can click on individual properties, and if there is an active zoning case, zoning adjustment 
case, or building permit on the property, a pop-up will appear with some more information and a link to a 
summary of the case. You can access this map here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/mycommunitymap 
>  
> Finally, you look to see if there are any active building permits on a property with our Permit Search here: 
https://apps-secure.phoenix.gov/PDD/Search/Permits 
>  
> I'll keep you posted on what I hear from my colleagues, but in the meantime if you have any questions, 
please don't hesitate to contact me. 
>  
> Best regards, 
>  
> Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
> (she/her/hers) 
> Planner II - Village Planner 
> City of Phoenix 
> Long Range Planning 
> Office: 602-256-5648  
> 200 West Washington Street 
> Phoenix, AZ 85003 
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net>  
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 3:23 AM 
> To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
> Subject: Broadstone on 7th and ... 
>  
> Good day Sofia - 
>  
> - Have you made a contact with 'streets' yet? If so I'd like the name of the person for my contact as well. This 
is about the 'barrier' on Palo Verde to 8th Place. 
>  
> - Next - Who should I contact to get a change in policy and practice in regard to the postings left on the 
'Planned Unit Development Current Cases' where the 1st, then 2nd Narratives are posted.

4
>  
> - Considering the substantial changes I read from 1st filing to the 2nd filing on the Broadstone on 7th 
submittals - It is important for the public to see what is being proposed at each step in the process with nothing 
removed. This has no cost impact to the city and is a step toward ensuring the interested public is as informed 
as is possible. The removal of documents serves no one. 
>  
> - I want to see that changed so everything filed is, and remains, visible to the public for every project. 
>  
> - Are there other CoP pages where other types of projects are shown? I ask this as I see plenty of projects, 
of different types, when I do drive in town, and seeing those just makes me wonder where I might find out more 
on those projects. 
>  
> - Such are the thoughts of a retired person. :o) 
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> . 
> Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
> .

1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 8, 2021 10:25 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
traffic on 8th Pl ...
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Good day Sofia - 
 
- Thanks for the information. 
 
- The sign example I sent along is just to show how the City has chosen to deal with keeping the problems of 
increases in traffic volume down in areas where it presents an increase in problems and associated risk to 
residents safety and peace. I realize there is no requirement for this change, but ... I would like to see support 
for the idea from the City and developer based on their awareness of this situation and the willingness to 
address it. 
 
- Our concerns are for an increased volume of traffic on 8th Pl come from our view that -many- of the vehicles 
departing the Broadstone property will turn to the North because of traffic on 7th St (what the City and State 
have both said is 'the most travelled street in Arizona - between Indian School and Glendale particularly). 
 
- These drivers will choose to turn on to Palo Verde (in search of a way to get to SB 7th St) and in doing so will 
dramatically increase the volume of cars (and generally increase the danger to parked vehicles, bicyclists, 
children, and pedestrians) using Palo Verde and 8th Pl as the easiest route away from the Broadstone property
for many drivers. The width of 8th Place contributes to these concerns. 
 
- The six townhomes were commented on by you previously (as a bad idea). 
 
- The removal of any filing from the will leave the public without any knowledge those filings exist. The easiest 
and most obvious solution is to simply leave them visible on the public access page. 
 
Thanks. 
 
. 
Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
. 
 
 
> On June 8, 2021 at 11:34 AM Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
>  
> Good morning Barry, 
>  
> I will pass your message regarding the web page to the management team. Although only the most recent 
narrative is posted on the website, all versions continue to be public record and can be requested through a 
Public Records Request. This can be done directly through the Village Planner or through the website here: 
https://www.phoenix.gov/pio/public-records-request. 
>  
> Thank you for your suggestion regarding the sign to discourage through traffic, and I will forward it to the 
Street Transportation Department. It is my understanding that, at this time, there are no requirements from the 
city for the developer to install such a sign on Palo Verde, as the main garage entry for the development will be

2
off of 7th Street. The PUD narrative restricts access from 8th Place, so that the main garage cannot be 
accessed from this street. The only vehicular movement on 8th Place related to this development will be for the 
6 individual townhome units, and I am not sure if this level of traffic would warrant a sign to be installed. 
However, I am not a traffic engineer. I will say that one of staff's stipulations for this case will be to submit a 
Traffic Impact Statement for review before any plans are approved. This will help the department determine if 
any other traffic mitigating features will be needed. These kinds of details are typically worked out at the plan 
review stage, after the zoning is in place.  
>  
> I will respond to your other emails separately. 
>  
> Best regards, 
>  
> Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
> (she/her/hers) 
> Planner II - Village Planner 
> City of Phoenix 
> Long Range Planning 
> Office: 602-256-5648 
> 200 West Washington Street 
> Phoenix, AZ 85003 
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net> 
> Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 3:42 PM 
> To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
> Subject: RE: Broadstone on 7th and ... 
>  
> Good day Sofia - 
>  
> - Thanks for the update. Not posted as of this moment - but I'm watching for it. 
>  
> - As for the public access page. I disagree completely that it would make it more difficult to navigate. As it is 
now, it is pretty much a good example of difficult to locate any info one is interested in. Funny thing - this is an 
example of why I was requested to participate in the creation of the original databases for: Our Superior Court, 
Justice Courts, Sec of State, Corp Comm over about 25 years ago. I've been asked to clarify and contribute 
language to proposed laws for our legislature too. I've created over 2,000 web pages - with the focus being on 
information versus entertainment. I began working in 'information' over 50 years ago in several fields, and that 
is still of great interest to me - how best to communicate with a particular group or industry.  
>  
> - Over 50% of the web work I've done has been re-do work. I've come to think of the difference in attitude 
and ability as being one of training and education. Most websites (and informational pages) are today being 
created by 'mechanics' (those who can create the page, operate the software, but have no awareness of 
'communications' or any real breadth of experience with various industries and their populations - they are 
quite simply not 'communicators' at all. These pages reflect this, for no good reason. 
>  
> - This page is a perfect example. 'Indexed' by the Z-number - how would any person, any member of the 
public know this number? and is therefore shut out - even after learning the name - and only then learning that 
Z-number. This page should be indexed alphabetically correct, allowing any person in the public to find a 
project easily by simply using the information in public releases and news stories, which still meets industry 
needs. 
>  
> - Having spoken with several lawyers ... Once the filing has been made it becomes a part of the public record 
and removing it from the public view might actually be considered a violation of Arizona's public records laws. 
While it might be accessible on request - how would anyone know to make a request for it? Simply keeping it

3
visible in the list and noted in some fashion, #1 etc, or some similar consistent notation solves it for everyone 
involved, as well as the law. 
>  
> - Overall, virtually every government public access page I have had the need to access is in similar condition 
- poorly designed and assembled. There is a huge amount of waste in evidence on government pages - huge 
amounts of wasted (and expensive) creation time and taxpayer's money - while not actually serving the public 
needs. 
>  
> - I will happily attend ANY meeting or assessment as might happen. Fat chance today. 
>  
> . 
>  
> - Okay, on to the street issue. I realized that if 8th/Palo Verde were simply blocked off / turned into a 'cul-de-
sac' essentially - the school buses that come through here would be forced to back up (we do have kids, 
bicyclists, and pedestrians - thus the safety issue of all the increase in traffic on 8th Place) - a situation to be 
avoided at all costs. So I've attached a photo I took yesterday showing what seems to resolve the access issue 
on Palo Verde (still maintaining all commercial access) and still allows the school buses their multiple daily 
trips to continue their exit to 7th St. Preventing all the likely increase in traffic and accompanying increased risk 
from those leaving Broadstone on 7th remains the goal. 
>  
> - The photo shows a tactic that is being used more frequently in these situations as an alternative to 
completely blocking the street to 'through' traffic (as being done off Central South of Thomas Rd). If I recall this 
was the choice of the City in response to the increased threat of increased traffic. Questions - by all means ask 
me. 
>  
> - I'm going to break this here - and will send a second eMail on two issues that have come up during this 
search for information. 
>  
> Thanks again. 
>  
> . 
> Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA 
> . 
>  
>  
> > On June 5, 2021 at 10:23 AM Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> wrote: 
> >  
> > Good morning Barry, 
> >  
> > I just wanted to provide you with an update regarding our last correspondence. I spoke with my supervisors 
and relayed your comments about the PUD projects page, and they indicated that they'd be open to your 
suggestion. However, given the number of drafts that typically come in for these cases, it might make the page 
more difficult to navigate. All development narrative drafts are part of the public record and can be provided to 
members of the public upon request. 
> >  
> > Also, we have received a resubmittal for the Broadstone on 7th PUD,  
> > which will be uploaded to the PUD webpage on Monday morning. I just  
> > sent in the request to upload this morning, as the submittal came in  
> > at the end of the day yesterday, but I doubt anyone is checking  
> > their emails on a Saturday স
হ
঺
঻ 
> >  
> > I am still waiting to hear from the Street Transportation team. They have been swamped. 
> >  
> > In the meantime, if you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. 
> >

4
> > Best regards, 
> >  
> > Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A 
> > (she/her/hers) 
> > Planner II - Village Planner 
> > City of Phoenix 
> > Long Range Planning 
> > Office: 602-256-5648 
> > 200 West Washington Street 
> > Phoenix, AZ 85003 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Sofia Mastikhina 
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 6:45 PM 
> > To: BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net> 
> > Subject: RE: Broadstone on 7th and ... 
> >  
> > Good evening Barry, 
> >  
> > I have forwarded your messages to the Street Transportation Department planner, Maja Brkovic 
(maja.brkovic@phoenix.gov), but have not heard back yet. We have seen a large influx of entitlement cases 
come in, so I'm sure she is just working on getting through all of them. I sent her a reminder today and will try 
to touch base tomorrow and provide you with further information. 
> >  
> > I have also forwarded your inquiry regarding the content on the city's website to my supervisor, as I am not 
sure how one would go about changing this staff procedure. As soon as I hear back, I will let you know. 
> >  
> > There are a few different places where you can find information on projects around the city. 
> >  
> > You are already familiar with the PUD page. There is also a page where we post the staff reports for 
"regular" rezoning cases (meaning they are rezoning to a standard zoning district, and not creating their own 
development narrative like a PUD). This page also includes staff reports for General Plan Amendments and 
Text Amendments. You can find those here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-
reports. 
> >  
> > One of the best tools to explore what developments are going on in  
> > the city is our interactive My Community Map. This allows you to  
> > navigate a map of the city either by typing in an address or just  
> > moving the map with your mouse. You can click on individual  
> > properties, and if there is an active zoning case, zoning adjustment  
> > case, or building permit on the property, a pop-up will appear with  
> > some more information and a link to a summary of the case. You can  
> > access this map here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/mycommunitymap 
> >  
> > Finally, you look to see if there are any active building permits on  
> > a property with our Permit Search here:  
> > https://apps-secure.phoenix.gov/PDD/Search/Permits 
> >  
> > I'll keep you posted on what I hear from my colleagues, but in the meantime if you have any questions, 
please don't hesitate to contact me. 
> >  
> > Best regards, 
> >  
> > Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A

5
> > (she/her/hers) 
> > Planner II - Village Planner 
> > City of Phoenix 
> > Long Range Planning 
> > Office: 602-256-5648 
> > 200 West Washington Street 
> > Phoenix, AZ 85003 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: BARRY KINTNER <barry14@cox.net> 
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 3:23 AM 
> > To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
> > Subject: Broadstone on 7th and ... 
> >  
> > Good day Sofia - 
> >  
> > - Have you made a contact with 'streets' yet? If so I'd like the name of the person for my contact as well. 
This is about the 'barrier' on Palo Verde to 8th Place. 
> >  
> > - Next - Who should I contact to get a change in policy and practice in regard to the postings left on the 
'Planned Unit Development Current Cases' where the 1st, then 2nd Narratives are posted.  
> >  
> > - Considering the substantial changes I read from 1st filing to the 2nd filing on the Broadstone on 7th 
submittals - It is important for the public to see what is being proposed at each step in the process with nothing 
removed. This has no cost impact to the city and is a step toward ensuring the interested public is as informed 
as is possible. The removal of documents serves no one. 
> >  
> > - I want to see that changed so everything filed is, and remains, visible to the public for every project. 
> >  
> > - Are there other CoP pages where other types of projects are shown? I ask this as I see plenty of projects, 
of different types, when I do drive in town, and seeing those just makes me wonder where I might find out more 
on those projects. 
> >  
> > - Such are the thoughts of a retired person. :o) 
> >  
> > Thank you. 
> >  
> > . 
> > Barry Kintner - Phoenix, Arizona USA .