Attachment G - Opposition - Z-59-22-1.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
44649 characters
From:
Alison McKee
To:
PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject:
#Z-59-22-1 & #GPA-DV-3-22-1
Date:
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:31:03 PM
Attachments:
COP letter home at Happy Valley - 230419.pdf
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee,
I am writing today on behalf of myself, my husband and the Apostolic community living in
our rural neighborhood. Please see the attached opposition letter to cases Z-59-22-1 and GPA-
DV-3-22-1. The letter outlines the many reasons why the zoning adjustment and general plan
amendment should not be considered or recommended to the city council. I constructed this
letter after speaking with our many neighbors who are members of the nearby Apostolic
Church. These Apostolic neighbors do not use computers or the internet outside of their
work. The letter reflects their concerns as well as the concerns of my husband and myself and
was signed with all of our addresses or parcel numbers and phone numbers. Since the meeting
is on a Thursday night, a church night for the Apostolic neighbors, they cannot attend. While
they will not skip a church service, they still want a voice in this important matter, and hope
that the committee will be accommodating and understand that this group signed letter is their
best means of communicating their opposition. Despite their lack of use of
modern technology, their opinions should matter and be heard by the committee and City
of Phoenix staff. We are all happy to accept a phone call to discuss this matter.
Please see the attached letter.
Kind Regards,
Alison McKee
$77$&+0(17*
! "# $$ %
& ' ( $$ %
)
%*') +,
- .
)/
)
0
1
/
+
0 -
+
))
/0
+,
! "# $$ %+, /
234
5 34,
+6 5-
/2'/
34,74
/ )0 )
+, "
- /
1 +0 )
) 2'
3476
89(
)
/ :
) +; )
+, / < =(>/
4 6 %? +
/0
89(+ /
)+, -
)
/+@)
2'/ )0 /
1+ 2A +,
/ 1 - +,
%*') ) ) / ) B +@
//1 $$8 - +
%*')+ +,
- )
-
C!
$99+
6+
-'!D"99(
!" #" "$% $% !
/
< 0+@ /
0 +@ / -+
/
)
) ! "# $$ %+
@
-& & ' ( $$ %
0
/0 & / +@
) /2E 5
$ /
/ +F "0
/
) /// )0 +,
6 % 5 ) 1 < =( +,
)
+4 5 +
. 0)
)0 )
+'
" -5 +@ )/
23 )/ 6 % +@ /
/ %G
/ + ) )
)
2@ @@@
C
:H)
/ )) +H
) ) 5
/+;
0 I +
)
)0 +.0
- /
=99G
+ 0
)
+' -
/
)
:/
) +;
& ' ( $$ % / +
-
/
/ -
& /0
-& )+ ) ! "# $$ %
& ' ( $$ %+ 7
Parcel # 210-09-017F
Parcel # 210-09-006B
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
> ?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
>
?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
> ?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
>
?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
> ?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
>
?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
> ?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
>
?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
> ?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
>
?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
> ?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
>
?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
From:
Diane Habener
To:
PDD Deer Valley VPC
Subject:
Zoning #2-59-22-1
Date:
Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:40:16 PM
I am completely appalled that you are even considering approving this project! Please go back and read your
Village Planning Handbook.
“Is the request consistent with the General Plan Map?”
NO
Does the request, “Promote the unique character of each village and strengthen existing neighborhoods?”
Absolutely not. This request destroys our existing
neighborhood.
This proposal has negative impacts that cannot be mitigated on traffic, density, height, environmental, character and
lifestyle.
Please listen to the neighbors and refuse this rezoning proposal.
Sincerely,
Diane Habener
25312 N 16th Ave
Phoenix 85085
Sent from my iPhone
From:
DaveVicki Rockey
To:
Matteo Moric
Subject:
Rezoning at 17th Ave and Happy Valley Rd
Date:
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:47:52 AM
We live in the area and are very much opposed to changing the zoning. We bought the land in 1976 and have lived
there since 1980. We are happy with our zoning now and do not want it to change to have more apartments in our
area.
#Z-59-22-1 and companion case #GPA-DV-22-1.
Vicki and David Rockey
25440 N 11th Ave
Phx, AZ 85085
Sent from my iPhone
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Allyson McLean <allyson.r.mclean@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 1, 2023 8:48 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
Phoenix,planningcommittee,
IamreachingoutasaconcernedcommunitymemberrequestingapostponementofthesecasesBeingdiscussedatthe
meetingon5/4/23,duetotheDVVPCcanceledmeetingduetonoquorum.Iamrequestingpostponementbeforone
month,whichwouldallowforourcommunitytogatherourvoicesmoreclearly,andallowforadequatetimeto
communicateourconcernswiththispossiblezoningchange.
Thatbeingsaid,shouldpostponementnotbegranted,Iwouldliketomakeitclearhowthispossiblezoningwould
effectmycommunity.Thiszoningchangewouldallowforalargeapartmentcomplexofapproximately243unitstobe
builtwithnoplanchangesontrafficdirecting.TrafficaloneonhappyValleyfrommycommunityisagreatchallenge.It
willbeexponentiallyincreasedwiththisapartmentcomplex.OurcommunityiszonedasSͲ1“whichisranchorfarm.
Residentdistrictdesignedtoprovideforverylowdensity,farmorresidentialusestoprotectandpreservelowdensity
areasintheirpresentordesiredcharacter.ItisintendedthattheS1districtwillafireareaswhereisSemiͲrural
residentialandagriculturalusescanbemaintainedwithoutimpairmentfromindustrial,commercial,orhigherdensity
residentialdevelopment”.Redistrictingthis8acreplotwillhaveamassiveaffectonourlowdensityneighborhoodby
grosslyincreasingthedensitygoingagainstwiththeS1districtstandsfor.Beyondinconvenienceoftheseredistrictingis
agreatconcernforsafetyregardingmychildrenandtheincreaseoftrafficwithoutplansonnewsafetyimplementation.
Ihopethatmyconcernscanbevoicedclearlyandunderstood.Changingacommunityinsuchadrasticwaywithouta
planonsafetyandtrafficlogisticsisaskingforsignificantproblemsifnotpossibleinjuries.InadditiontotheseconcernsI
amalsoconcernedaboutthestressofthesenewapartmentswillputonthecurrentschoolsasamountofgrowthinthe
areahasbeenexponentialwithoutredistrictingoftheschoolsorplansfornewschoolsintheverynearfuture.
AllysonandMichaelMcLean
1607wParsonsrd
Phoenix,AZ85085
303Ͳ242Ͳ1871
SentfrommyiPhone
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Alison McKee <alisonsmckee@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:43 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Subject:
GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
Attachments:
PlanningCommissionLetterHomeatHappyValley 230502.pdf
PlanningCommission,
Iamwritingtodayonbehalfofmyself,myhusbandandtheApostoliccommunitylivinginourrural
neighborhood.PleaseseetheattachedoppositionlettertocasesZͲ59Ͳ22Ͳ1andGPAͲDVͲ3Ͳ22Ͳ1.Inthisletterweare
askingforapostponementofthePlanningCommissionhearingonthiscaseandoutliningthemanyreasonswhy
thezoningadjustmentandgeneralplanamendmentshouldnotbeconsideredorrecommendedtothecitycouncil.I
constructedthisletterafterspeakingwithourmanyneighborswhoaremembersofthenearbyApostolicChurch.These
Apostolicneighborsdonotusecomputersortheinternetoutsideoftheirwork.Theletterreflectstheirconcernsas
wellastheconcernsofmyhusbandandmyselfandwassignedwithallofouraddressesorparcelnumbersandphone
numbers.SincethemeetingisonaThursdaynight,achurchnightfortheApostolicneighbors,theycannot
attend.Whiletheywillnotskipachurchservice,theystillwantavoiceinthisimportantmatter,andhopethatthe
committeewillbeaccommodatingandunderstandthatthisgroupsignedletteristheirbestmeansofcommunicating
theiropposition.Despitetheirlackofuseofmoderntechnology,theiropinionsshouldmatterandbeheardbythe
committeeandCityofPhoenixstaff.Weareallhappytoacceptaphonecalltodiscussthismatter.
Pleaseseetheattachedletter.
KindRegards,
AlisonMcKee
!" ## $
%& ' ( ## $ )
$*&) +
,
-
+.
)
/
)
+0 - ) -) - !
1 ,+0 /
+
2
) 3 ) 4 4$
+& /
+.
!5 $ ) ) - +
6 ,4 4 )
+ )
+
2 4 4$
+7-
)
+6 4 0895'&: ,
)
+0
)
-
)
+& )
)- , 1 )
+; )
+
0 14 )- )
,
2
-
+
,
1
+0
!" ## $+0 -
+0
)
/1 - +5 -
) ,) +0
!
1
-
2 +0
)
) )
+5 <=(
)
1
>
#==
+
5+
1& ?!==(
!" #" "$% $% !
-
@
)
+AB
1)
- +0
-
2 1 +0 @
A
/
+&
) - )
$*&)+ ) - 1 ) $* &)+
0C1 $*&))2
+0
$*&) ) )
-)
C +;
- -2
##<
1
)
) +0 1
) -
8 ,+
$*&)+ +;
-
,
-
1+
-
) )
!" ## $+
; 1% %& ' ( ## $%
-
+0 )-+B / #
- -
+D
! ,- ) -- -)
,
+0 5 $ /) 28 E(
+0
)
+B
/
+4 ,) ) ,)
+&
!
1/
+0 ))
+;;;;
> @9)-
)
) +9 )
)
/
- +A,
3
+
) ) ,
+4,
1- E==F
+
,
) +&
1)
)
@-)
+A
%& ' ( ## $ -+
1
- -
1 1
1% ) + ) !" ## $
%& ' ( ## $+
G
HHH
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:46 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
laurel@clearskies.com; alisonsmckee@gmail.com
Subject:
GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
May 2, 2023
To Whom It May Concern;
RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
As a community we are requesting to POSTPONE the meeting May 4th. Our community are large horse properties and
the 600 ft outreach requirement did not let our community know about these changes to zoning and another HUGE
apartment development in our landlocked community.
We are asking for more time to allow others in the neighbor to know and properly address these developments.
For the record, we are OPPOSED to yet another HUGE apartment development. First of all, there has been no
consideration for the horse properties owners nor our livestock lifestyle with all the rentals being approved. Short-term
apartment culture is in complete contrast to our livestock culture.
The other MAJOR impact that is not being considered is how all these huge apartment developments are placed at our
community’s entrances and exists. These developments do not show any concessions for our community and it is
landlocking us. We are already feeling the increase of traffic without the completion of the thousands of people you have
already approved that outnumber our small community. It will make it very difficult and dangerous to be pulling horse
trailers in and out of our community.
Unfortunately, this feels like another unheard request for our community but we feel we need to make yet another attempt
to voice our concerns.
In closing,
Alan and Melissa Crawford
Owners of two properties on W Parsons Rd.
623 606 7248
Margaret Langley
1607 W Parsons Road
Phoenix AZ 85085
(970)217-2791
Margaret.a.langley@gmail.com
May 2, 2023
Phoenix Planning Commission
RE: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to request a postponement of this rezoning request and submit
my objections to this zoning change. Please consider postponement due to
the cancellation of the DVVPC meeting as there wasn't a quorum.
I am opposed to this zoning change. Two large apartment complexes are
already on the way that will not only disrupt our way of life and the character of
our neighborhood, but dangerously increase traffic. Please do not add
another. Please do not recommend zoning changes and general plan
amendment to the City of Phoenix council to make way for Home at Happy
Valley.
Home at Happy Valley, a multi-family housing development, is different from
the other developments in that it DOES NOT border a major road. It is on 17th
Avenue which is surrounded by Maricopa County RU-43 properties. This will
make traffic on our rural, PRIVATE, dirt roads a nightmare. The developer
claim residents from these apartments won't use our roads. How are they
going to stop them? There is a median at 17th which means traffic must access
Happy Valley to go east to the 101, by going north on 17th to Parsons and
going west to 19th or east to 15th. Both ways are through our neighborhood
on private roads. Happy Valley and 19th Avenues are already congested
because the city has not adequately improved them for the traffic created by
the neighboring community of Union Park. We already have drivers using our
rural area as a cut through when westbound traffic on single lane Happy Valley
is bumper to bumper. This problem will only be compounded by the building of
the 2 other apartment complexes. We simply cannot handle more traffic that
will be caused by a third.
My family has been in this valley for five generations. When I moved with my
daughter's family back to Arizona, to live self-sufficiently and become
beekeepers, we purchased this land, believing the general plan, which
showed commercial, medical/dental office space as the buffer between our
county island and a growing city. Now we're faced with three large apartment
complexes! Please vote no on the general plan amendment and help us
maintain the certainty that it promises and honor the statement to, "Ensure that
development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the
character and identity of each unique community and neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Margaret Langley
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Laurel Brodie <laurel@clearskies.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:29 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject:
Fw: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement
of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Subject: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning Committee
meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
I am writing a separate appeal to request that the May 4, 2023 meeting for this case be postponed due to
what we feel are extenuating circumstances. We would appreciate your consideration of this request ASAP, as
if you agree that these items constitute enough of a reason to postpone and you could let us know that, many
of us would not have to make a 50 mile drive (round trip) partly during rush hour, which would also require
some of us to leave our work places early (if we are able to) just to attend a meeting you might decide to
postpone once we are there. Yes I understand we can attend virtually but those types of meetings truly are
not effective if you want to be heard. And if you do not postpone, we want to be heard. Please consider the
following circumstances;
1. Most of us have been talking wondering how we ended up so late to this game. Obviously the majority
of the residents within our small County Island were not notified by the developer (not required, I
understand that) but we try to keep an eye out for indications of things that might be occuring and the
posted sign issue has been gnawing at my brain wondering why none of us picked up on that the
minute it was posted. At 4 am I realized why that was. The posted sign referencing these requested
changes and meetings was posted 270 ' away from the SE corner of the 5 acre parcel (210-10-
003) among the piles of dirt that exist on the 3 acre parcel (210-10-019D & 210-10-019H) - There is
NO signage of ANY kind on the 5 acre S1 zoned parcel. Most of us when driving that way on
17th Avenue paid that sign no attention as the assumption was it involved the C2 zoned properties
which didn't concern us a whole lot as those fights were long over. When I finally made a point of
stopping and getting out of my vehicle it then became known what we are up against. I will send
pictures in a follow up email which show how easily we could all make this assumption due to the sign
placement. We are talking 2 separate cases and 3 separate parcels owned by 2 separate entities, we
find it extremely unfair if the placement of the one and only sign was placed as far away as possible
from the S-1 5 acre parcel. At a minimum it should have been centered between the 5 acre and 3 acre
parcels. And even though these are companion cases they are currently differently zoned parcels and I
would expect that should require 2 separate signs, or at least multiple signs due to the size and
configuration of the area as your Step 9 states. We feel that the intent of the below requirements was
NOT MET and that alone should get us a postponement.
2
Step 9: Posting Sign on Property The following shall be submitted as part of the Citizen Participation Report:
The applicant is required to post a double-sided sign (Pages 27-28), 4-foot by 8-foot, at a prominent location
on the site a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the first Village Planning Committee meeting. Multiple
signs may be required depending on the size of the site and location of street frontages. As in the case of the
written notices, the applicant shall submit a notarized affidavit of posting (Pages 29-30) stating the sign has
been posted and a photograph showing the sign on the site to the assigned staff planner two weeks prior to
the first public meeting/hearing, 2nd Floor, Phoenix City Hall, 200 West Washington Street. Signs shall be
updated as needed. Continued cases shall be posted a minimum of seven calendar days prior to continuance
date or immediately after the request is granted. An additional affidavit of posting (Page 30) is required. Signs
must be removed by the applicant within seven calendar days of City Council action
B) The first meeting (which we admit to be unaware of) with the DVVCP which was to be held virtually
evidently resulted in a No Quorum, so no recommendation resulted. The second meeting, (April 20)
which many of us made a point to attend, which included a peaceful style protest and with local news on site,
also resulted in a No Quorum, so we were denied
our first known opportunity to make our concerns known. Therefore, we will never know whether we
would have had the support of the DVVCP in our endeavors, and if we did, how
that might have affected your outlook.
Step 11: Village Planning Committee Meeting Prior to any public hearing, the application will be reviewed at a
regularly scheduled Village Planning Committee monthly meeting (Pages 53-54). Staff will provide the
committee and the applicant a copy of the staff report prior to this meeting. The Village Planning Committee
will make a recommendation. The recommendation from the Village Planning Committee will be forwarded to
the Planning Commission on a Village Planning Committee recommendation form. A copy of the form will be
provided to the applicant, upon request.
C) Since that Non-meeting on April 20th the Developers finally reached out directly to residents beyond their
required 600'. That "open house" was held May 1, which many made the point of attending. The results of
that only made us more concerned that serious concerns involving traffic and density are not being properly
addressed.
Step 12: Planning Commission Action – Public Hearing This public hearing occurs approximately three to five
weeks after the Village Planning Committee meeting. During this public hearing, your rezoning application will
be reviewed and either approved, approved with stipulations, denied, denied as filed and approved differently
than requested, or continued. • Public hearing – legally advertised and posted a minimum of 15 calendar days
prior to hearing (by the applicant). Appeals • Action taken by the Planning Commission can be appealed by the
applicant or interested parties within seven calendar days. Appeals will be forwarded to the City Council for a
public hearing. • Written protests to require a 3/4 vote submitted no later than seven calendar days following
the Planning Commission hearing may require 3/4 vote, rather than a majority vote, for the City Council to
approve the application. • If no appeal is received, ratification occurs at the scheduled City Council hearing. •
The City Council may, by a majority vote; 1) request a public hearing on a Planning Commission
recommendation request that has not been appealed or, 2) send the case back to the Planning Commission
for further consideration. If a hearing is requested, it must first be re-advertised and posted.
We are respectfully requesting that you POSTPONE the Planning Committee meeting so that we can, as a
neighborhood, have the time to gather together and fully discuss the concerns that will have extreme impact
on our small, essentially landlocked (due to the CAP) triangular County Island, so that we can present those
concerns to you for your careful consideration.
3
History has shown us that past cases that make it past your Department are essentially done deals and we
have no chance at a City Council meeting of being heard to the extent that it would make any difference, so
WE IMPLORE YOU TO HEAR OUR VOICES NOW and postpone the May 4th hearing on these cases for at least a
month.
I am also following this email request with pictures of the Installed Notification signage.
Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie (representing many voices from our neighborhood Community)
25657 N. 17th Avenue
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Laurel Brodie <laurel@clearskies.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:30 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject:
Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for
Postponement of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Attachments:
IMG_3230.jpg; IMG_3234.jpg; IMG_3231.jpg; IMG_3235.jpg
Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning
Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
1st picture is of the Completely fenced 5 acre S-1 parcel
2ndpicture show footage from that corner to sign
3rd picture is the view of the sign standing on the SE corner of that parcel looking south
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Laurel Brodie <laurel@clearskies.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:32 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Alison McKee; Melissa Crawford
Subject:
Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for
Postponement of the Planning Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
Attachments:
IMG_3239.jpg; IMG_3256.jpg; IMG_3240.jpg; IMG_3259.jpg; IMG_3260.jpg
Subject: Pictures RE: Urgent - GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1) Request for Postponement of the Planning
Committee meeting scheduled May 4, 6 PM
1st picture is at the sign looking North towards the 5 acre fenced S! parcel
2ndpicture looking west on 17th Ave (notice the debris piles)
3rd picture is the view of the sign looking North
4th picture just emphasizing the amount of obstructions
5th picture shows the corner of the 5 acre lot looking south
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Diane Habener <diane@tarescue.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 4, 2023 2:55 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
Fwd: GPA-DV-3-22-1 & Z-59-22-1
SentfrommyiPhone
Beginforwardedmessage:
From:DianeHabener<diane@tarescue.com>
Date:May4,2023at2:37:22PMMST
To:pdf.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
Subject:GPAͲDVͲ3Ͳ22Ͳ1&ZͲ59Ͳ22Ͳ1
PleasepostponeanyvoteonthisprojectastheDeerValleyVillagePlanningCommissionwerenotable
tolistentoneighborhoodinputorvoteastherewasnoquorumandweneighborswerenotheard.
Regardingthisproposedhighdensity4and5storyapartmentsnexttominimum1.25+acrerural
homes,whywasthisevenallowedtobeproposed?Highdensitynexttorural?Youdon’thavetobe
RayCharlestoseethatthatispoorplanning!Iliveon2.5acresoneparcelawayfromthisandam
1000%againstit.Pleasekeeptheexistingcommercialonthesouth3acresandLOWdensityresidential
ontheother5acreswithnomorethan2storiesallowed.Thankyou.
Sincerely,
DianeHabener
25312N16thAve
Phoenix85085
(925)209Ͳ6480cell
SentfrommyiPhone
1
Matteo Moric
Subject:
FW: Z-59-22-1 GPA-DV-3-22-1
From: Alison McKee <alisonsmckee@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Z‐59‐22‐1 GPA‐DV‐3‐22‐1
District 8 Councilperson,
I'm writing to you today about a matter that is very important to me and to our small, rural community in an
unincorporated area of Maricopa County. Rezoning case Z‐59‐22‐1 and the companion case GPA‐DV‐3‐22‐1 will be
before the city council next week. The rezoning and general plan amendment cases are proposed to make way for a
multi‐family housing unit, an apartment complex called Home at Happy Valley in District 1. I do hope that the council
will vote no on both cases, as this apartment complex is completely inappropriate for the area.
Home at Happy Valley has a five‐story building as part of the PUD. There are no five‐story apartment buildings in the
vicinity. In fact, all of the new apartments on Happy Valley road, 19th Avenue south of Happy Valley, and even on the
frontage road of I‐17 from Jomax to Dixeleta, are three stories or less. All of the aforementioned apartment complexes
abut commercial properties, yet the max height is only three stories. It is not in character of the area and is not
appropriate to put a five‐story building near rural, single family residences.
Traffic is a huge concern for our rural community, as our roads are private and are maintained by us, the property
owners. These are dirt roads that are meant to give right away to people living in our county island. They are not
appropriate for the amount of traffic that the proposed PUD, Home at Happy Valley will create. County resident traffic
concerns have not been addressed by the city staff or the developer. The developer may have an approved traffic plan,
but our private county roads were not involved in the traffic study used to create the plan, and no concrete plan is in
place to keep traffic from the proposed PUD from driving on private, dirt roads. Also, no information has been given by
staff that would indicate when Happy Valley road to the east of 17th Avenue would be improved to accommodate traffic
from this proposed PUD. It is currently one lane each direction with no turn lanes. With two other multi‐family housing
developments approved in the area, we are going to have more traffic problems in an already congested area. There
have been three car accidents in the area of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Rd. within the past 3 weeks! We cannot
afford the traffic of yet another apartment complex.
The entrance and exits of the proposed PUD are also a great concern to our community. Of course, we have the traffic
issues, as mentioned above, on our dirt roads. But even more concerning is what the developer is touting as their main
entrance. This entrance is to be through the parking lot of a child care/preschool! Residents in the area cannot think of
a more inappropriate place to increase traffic.
Lastly, but what I feel is the most important fact to point out in these rezoning and general plan amendment cases, is
that the proposed multi‐family housing development completely goes against the City of Phoenix's own zoning
ordinance and general plan goals. Section 603 of the municipal zoning codes states that the city will protect and
preserve low density areas and their present and desired character, and that these areas may be maintained "without
the impairment of higher density residential development." The proposed multi‐family housing development also
undermines goals of the general plan. While I do understand that the general plan must morph and change as the city
grows and changes, the goals within the general plan should always remain constant. In part III of the general plan under
certainty and character, the goal clearly states, "Every neighborhood and community should have a level of certainty.
2
Ensure that development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the character and identity of each
unique community and neighborhood."
In conclusion, I would like to point out that our community did have the support of some members of the planning
commission. The planning commissioners that were against the rezoning and general plan amendment, and the
proposed PUD, Home at Happy Valley, were the commissioners that took the time to come and see the property in
question and the surrounding rural community. We hope that you will do the same, come out and visit our area! This
email includes a personal invitation to come visit my rural property, all of my animals and I will happily show you around
the area, including the preschool/daycare where the developer proposes to have the main entrance to this apartment
complex. I do believe that if you accept my invitation, you will understand the issues that this multi‐family housing
development will cause, not only for our rural community, but for your city as well.
Kindest regards,
Alison McKee
1219 W Parsons Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
602‐702‐3676
*******
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Kathy Doucette <kathy@skytechdrilling.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:16 PM
To:
Mayor Gallego
Cc:
PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; PDD Deer Valley VPC; Matteo Moric; Chairman Hickman;
Supervisor Gallardo; Supervisor Galvin; Supervisor Gates; Vice Chairman Sellers
Subject:
GPA-DV-3-22-1 (Companion Case Z-59-22-1)
Dear Ms. Gallego,
I live in the Maricopa County Island that will be extremely negatively affected by the Proposed high density PUD
apartment complex at 17th Ave and Happy Valley. Please vote no on the Re‐Zoning Application.
The roads in our County Island are private roads that we own and are responsible for maintaining. This is no small task
with the current traffic we have in our community and the increased traffic of populating the proposed apartment
complex would be a nightmare and significantly compromise the safety of all that travel the roads. For example, it took
over a year to collect funds from neighbors just to get Briles road repaired recently. It is a community effort and expense
that would not be supported by apartment complex residents and would be left to us homeowners to manage.
In addition, both Happy Valley Road and 19th Ave, in this area are not adequately able to handle this proposed traffic
increase. Access and traffic flow currently present safety concerns/ issues as frustrated drivers try to pull out into never
ending lines of cars. The inability of these public roads to absorb the additional traffic will most definitely send drivers to
our private roads!
I urge you to respect the needs and safety of our Maricopa County Island and VOTE NO ON THE RE‐ZONING
APPLICATION.
Sincerely,
Kathy Doucette
26223 N 17th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
928‐587‐4269