Attachment F - Opposition - Z-15-23-3.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2023-07-03)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 32269 characters

1
05-09-2023 Opposition Letter re: Z-15-23 3
North Mountain Village Committee Meeting
Scheduled meeting: May 17, 2023, 6:00pm, Request to speak, 2 minutes
Monta L. Redd, 13827 N. 12th St., Phx, AZ 85022, monta@cox.net, 602-942-3069 landline
Rezoning this parcel differently than its surrounding uses will not serve a public benefit
to the other properties. It is considered “spot zoning” for the sole benefit of a LLC
business that purchased this lot to make money to the detriment of neighboring
property owners.
The applicant proposes to build two houses on a lot that is meant for, and is currently
occupied by one house. This lot is too small in lot dimensions and square footage to be
divided into two lots and it will not comply with R1-8 zoning ordinances.
I am not opposed to the applicant redeveloping this property, however, splitting this lot
to build two houses that will require serious grading of the land will be detrimental to
properties on this street that experience severe flooding issues. Building one large
beautiful home on this lot will not require the hazardous grading and will maintain the
properties lot coverage at a low density which this street desperately needs to maintain.
Applicant could build a 3,000 sf house with a 3 car garage, covered porch and patio
with a lot coverage of approximately 25%.
City of Phoenix Staff Report
Page 1 - The requested R1-8 zoning is compatible with existing residential
developments to the northeast
The residential development northeast that the Staff Report is comparing our street to
is Fairview at the Pointe. This is a planned area development with tract style housing,
an HOA that has monthly fees and regulations that forbid RVs, boats, livestock, etc.
R1-8 zoning is compatible with that development; however, it is not compatible for our
street with S-1 and R1-10 properties with typical lots 10,000sf to 14,000sf including
17,000sf and 20,000sf lots, and a property across the street that has a 4+ acre ranch and
raises miniature horses. Properties on our street enjoy equestrian and agriculture
privileges, and ample parking for our outdoor hobbies and multiple vehicles.
The applicant’s property, once split, will not have equestrian/agriculture privileges, or
ample parking due to their small lots. This fact will be detrimental to the future owners
of the applicant’s proposed properties as they will be surrounded by the loud noises
and unique odors that come from horses, chickens, roasters, collector car mechanics,
and a race car hobbyist. The future owners need to be warned regarding this street’s
ATTACHMENT F

2
composition. The typical buyer for the applicant’s property will be looking for a home
in an HOA community where they are surrounded by similar houses. Our street will
negatively affect the value of the applicant’s houses.
Please see a similar situation that was address by the Maryvale Village Planning
Committee: Staff Report: Z-11-22-5 May 11, 2022 Page 5 of 11
The surrounding large lot RE-35 single-family residences to the north, east, and south
have an established equestrian and agricultural character. To ensure that future owners
of the proposed new houses are aware of near-by agricultural uses, Stipulation No. 14
requires the disclosure of agricultural uses

Page 1, continued on Page 2 - The proposal will provide new single-family housing
opportunities near other single-family of similar densities. The proposal will broaden
the range of housing types and densities available in this neighborhood.

The applicant will not be broadening a range of housing types, in fact the opposite. The
amenities the applicant’s property now offers are rare and almost extinct and after the
property is split the lots will no longer have these amenities. The higher density,
8,000sf and 10,000sf lots, and more restrictive lifestyle is predominate in this area.

The applicant will be increasing the lot density from 20% to 36%. It is imperative that
this street stay low density with properties that have a small percentage of lot coverage
due to the extreme flooding issues. Exhibit A. Lot coverage is the percentage of the
total lot area that is covered by impervious (inflexible) surface. Impervious surfaces are
regulated because, when more land is covered with buildings and pavement, water
runoff can cause drainage problems on that property and to neighboring properties. S-1
zoning has a 20% lot coverage. R1-8 has a 40% lot coverage. Typical properties on this
street have 11% to 19% lot coverage. My property is at 11%. The medium is 14%. The
applicant’s property will have 36% coverage. The applicant states his lot coverage as
33%, however, the Staff Report failed to include the covered patio and porch in the
calculations which is required. His lot currently has 13% lot coverage.
12th Street is a rolling street that takes a large dip in the middle. My house and my
neighbor to the south are located at the lowest elevation of this street and next to the
Moon Valley Wash, which is a designated 30’ Wash. This location on 12th Street backs
Lookout Mountain Golf Course and their large retention basin. During heavy
rainstorms this basin will overflow into the Moon Valley Wash. 12th Street has 5 distinct
washes and 2 natural waterways between Hearn Road and Roberts, a distance of about
1000’. The washes are between 30’ and 41’, waterway are 10’ to 17’ Exhibit B.
Besides the overflow of floodwater from the Moon Valley Wash, our street receives
diverted flood water from the northern hillside properties located near the base of

3
Lookout Mountain Preserves and from the south from North Mountain Preserves.
Hillside 9 Subdivision (north) in particular has two large manmade washes, one
running down the middle of their subdivision (55’+) and the 2nd (36’) at the east end of
their subdivision. These washes start at the base of Lookout Mountain Preserves, run
through the subdivisions and divert their rainwater and debris to 12th Street. The 55’
wash disperses the flood water down to and then across Hearn Road, to another 32’
drainage wash that diverts all this rushing flood to 12th Street. There are several smaller
private drainage paths on Hearn Road in addition to the two large washes. Exhibit C.
Please note the aerial map showing the Hillside Subdivision and the large wash down
the center. The Fairway at The Pointe and The Summit at the Pointe are Subdivisions
north and east that divert their flood water to the golf course and Moon Valley Wash
behind 12th Street. Exhibit D. Our street gets extensive flood water, debris, garbage,
and even rock boulders from the north and from the south.

Page 2 - The requested R1-8 zoning is respectful of local conditions. The proposal
incorporates large setbacks, landscaping, and density limits that prevent the
development from having a negative impact on the surrounding area.

The applicant’s proposal does not respect local conditions and it does not include large
setbacks nor does it prevent a negative impact on the surrounding area.

Properties on our street have maintained the S-1 zoning 40’ frontline set back. Typical
side setbacks no longer conform with the S-1 zoning, however, properties currently
enjoy large open space with 19’ to 56’ between houses.

The applicant’s proposed two properties with their 30’ front set back will jet out in front
of the current houses and will be aesthetically unappealing and block the neighbor’s
views.
Paradise Valley Village Committee had a similar issue with Z-7-22-3 and addressed the
40’ frontline setback as follows:
April 28, 2022, Page 5 of 9, #4 Proposal
“To avoid potential conflicts with the surrounding character and to ensure the site
develops as proposed, staff recommends a stipulation to require a minimum 40- foot
front yard setback (Stipulation No. 2). The proposed development includes a setback of
40 feet which would mitigate the concern of loss of open space and be more compatible
with the larger lots in the area.”
The most serious aspect of this proposal is the flooding issues that will damage
properties to the south of the applicant.

4
The applicant’s property is my neighbor to the north and is 4’ higher than my property.
The applicant’s property has an 8’ 45 degree angle that slopes downward 4’ to my
property. In addition, there is a natural waterway between our properties that the
applicant intends on building one of his houses on. Exhibit E. I understand the
applicant intends on lowering his lot 2’ to 3’. This is hearsay I heard from a neighbor.

The applicant drastically altering the topography of their lot by lowering it 2’ to 3’,
building over a natural water way, and increasing their current lot coverage from 13%
to 36% will produce excess floodwater that has to go someplace and I fear it will end up
flooding into my property and possibly my neighbor to the south also.

Generally, when a neighborhood is planned, there is a grading and drainage plan
submitted to the city or county that is approved and confirmed by the inspectors, and
that is what it is. No one can just unilaterally decide to change it. There is an established
path of drainage through the properties that they have to respect.

My property has been severely flooded 8 times due to two neighbors on 12th Street
altering their properties through grading. To save my property from destruction I
had to file two civil lawsuits to get injunctions forcing the neighbors to return their
properties to their original condition. I suffered over $100,000 in damages and legal
costs. My neighbor to the south was also flooded. Exhibit F. I prevailed in my
lawsuits and neither my property nor my southern neighbor have been flooded for 10
years since the corrections were made to the properties. There is currently a new civil
lawsuit that was filed on January 20, 2023, by the Villages Homeowners Association
due to their flooding problems. The Villages subdivision is directly south of our
street, across Roberts Road, and backs the same golf course. There are ten homes and
the common areas that are getting flooded. The lawsuit case number is CV2023-001069.
The flood water that they receive originates from the North Mountain Preserves which
flows down the golf course, past, and unfortunately into their subdivision, and then to
the Moon Valley Wash on 12th Street.

This area/neighborhood and especially 12th Street is highly sensitive to flooding due to
erosion and people who negligently alter their properties without knowing and/or
caring about the consequences. The applicant does not live in this area nor do they plan
on living in their proposed houses.

Page 2 – Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
On Site – S-1
North – R1-10, (not S-1 as listed in Staff Report)
South – R1-10, PAD 6 (not S-1 as listed in Staff Report)
East – Lookout Mountain Golf Course and retention basin (R1-10 across golf course)
West – S-1, R1-10 mixed (listed as only R1-10)

5
Page 3 – R1-8 Standards and Requirements and Site Proposed Provisions
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% R1-8 required 36% Proposed
As noted earlier the applicant didn’t include the covered patio and porch which is
required in calculating the lot coverage. The proposed lot coverage is below R1-8
zoning, however, S-1 has a 20% lot coverage which properties on this street have and
need to continue to maintain due to the heavily flooding.

Minimum Building Setbacks R1-8 Required 20’ front, and 3’ and 10’ side. Proposed
30’ front set back, 10’ and 3’ side set back. Properties on this street have 40’ frontline
setbacks.

Applicant’s recent survey goes against the legal description recorded in Assessors
Records which state that the lot is .37 of an acre. Applicant says it is .39 of an acre and
eliminated the .37 from the legal description they submitted. Exhibit G. Applicant’s .39
survey has the neighbor to the north encroaching onto the applicant’s property 3’
including the setback. To adhere to required side setbacks the applicant will have to
build their fence on top of the neighbor’s driveway and into their backyard. If they
elect to give this area to their neighbor and move their side set back instead, they would
no longer conform to zoning ordinances. This issue needs to be address to determine
the actual side setbacks applicant will use to determine if another variance will be
required. Exhibit H.

The applicant’s plans on lowering their elevated lot 2’ to 3’ will require a retainer wall
alongside the borderline and the southern fence which I own. Removing 2’ to 3’ of dirt
away from a fence will weaken and expose the footings. Due to the topography on this
lot, my fence runs from 7’ to 6’ tall. If the applicant lowers his lot my fence (on my lot)
will be 8’ to 10’ tall and will not conform to building code which is 6’ tall. I do not know
what the legal ramifications will be regarding an illegal fence height.

There is a 12’ non recorded sewer and a multi-purpose trail easement at the back of the
applicant’s property that is not fenced. The applicant indicated his intension of
including this area in his lot and it is unknown if this easement will also be lowered and
possibly expose or weaken the 12” PVC sewer line.

The applicant will have to build a retainer wall alongside my fence to lower his
property so it is buildable. A retainer fence requires an additional foot between
structures. Having these two fences in place is aesthetically very unattractive. I have
included pictures of my neighbor to the south who had a similar retainer wall
professionally installed when the lot next door to him was lowered. Exhibit I

There is also an issue with the gas line being located on the southern borderline of
our properties from the street and running 42’. Lowering this property will require a
retainer fence and footings to hold back the applicant’s property in the exact area where

6
the gas line is located. It is illegal to build a fence on top of a high pressure gas line.
This needs to be addressed. Move the gas line; and if is so where to, and who pays for
it?

Page 4, #4 Site Plan – Proposal
The applicant does not meet the minimum lot width for R1-8 zoning which is 70’. The
applicant proposed lot split will have 62’ lot widths. The applicant stated in a letter to
Development Services Department on March 17, 2023, they were going to apply for a
variance to reduce the required lot width for lot 1 to 50’, and for lot 2 to 60’.

In every re-zoning case that I have read and/or attended there is a paragraph in the
Staff Report that states:

Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.

One of the goals outlined in Phoenix’s General Plan: “Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative
impact(s) on the residential properties. “

For the applicant to get a variance they would have to prove a hardship.

Per the North Mountain Village Handbook P. 10 the Applicant has to meet four certain
tests to determine the viability of a variance request. The applicant can’t meet any of
the hardship tests.

Page 4, #5 Elevations

7
Properties on this street are all single level homes with 40’ frontline setbacks. The
applicant’s proposed one-story elevation is compatible with our street. The applicant’s
proposed design is attractive and would complement any subdivision.

Page 5, #9 Community Input Summary
The applicant never sent out notices nor held a meeting for the neighborhood. The
owner told me months ago that he had already been approved for rezoning.

Page 5, Interdepartmental Comments
#11 Water Services Department –
Properties on this street are not connected to the city sewer system and have septic
systems, including the applicant’s property. A private builder installed a sewer line on
our street in 2007. Due to our rolling street the sewer line was placed much higher than
the typical required depth. I was told my property was too low in elevation to connect
to the sewer line. If the applicant lowers his lot they could be too low to tap into the
sewer line and will have to install new septic systems. Due to his high density lot
coverage and the square footage needed for septic systems, it might not be possible to
install septic systems. This was not addressed in the Water Services letter.

In Summary:

One of the goals outlined in Phoenix’s General Plan:

Every neighborhood and community should have a level of certainty.

Ensure that development, redevelopment and infrastructure support and reinforce the
character and identity of each unique community and neighborhood.
Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing
lifestyles through new development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance.
Zoning laws are legally binding and regulate the impact of land use that may not be in
the best interests of the people, generally including such things as:
• Protecting the value and enjoyment of properties by separating incompatible land
uses and minimizing their potentially negative impacts upon each other.
• Protecting the value and enjoyment of properties by allowing a property its most
appropriate land use given its location and surrounding uses.
Decisions to rezone a parcel should be based on logical and sound analysis rather than
personalities, preferences, or property owners.

Thank you for your time,
Monta L. Redd
13827 N. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85022
monta@cox.net
602-9423069 landline

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit C
Hillside Subdivision wash
12th Street

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

1
05-30-2023 Opposition Letter re: Z-15-23 3
Phoenix Planning Commission
Scheduled meeting: June 1, 2023, 6:00pm, Request to speak

Monta L. Redd, 13827 N. 12th St., Phx, AZ 85022, monta@cox.net, 602-942-3069 landline,
602-619-7178 cell.

NOTE: The applicant scheduled the only neighborhood meeting for May 30, 2023 at
6:00pm with a 5 day notice. This opposition letter will not include information received
at the neighborhood meeting.

Rezoning this parcel differently than its surrounding uses will not serve a public benefit
to the other properties. It is considered “spot zoning” for the sole benefit of a LLC
business that purchased this lot to make money to the detriment of neighboring
property owners.
The applicant proposes to build two houses on a lot that is meant for, and is currently
occupied by one house. This lot is too small in lot dimensions and square footage to be
divided into two lots and it will not comply with R1-8 zoning ordinances.

The custom build houses submitted to the North Mountain Village Committee and
approved by a vote of 10-2 were for 2,300 sqft houses, a 25’ frontline setback, and 36%
lot coverage. The houses now being submitted to the Planning Commission are for
2,511 sqft houses with a 20’ front lot line., and 39% lot coverage Note: all the houses
on our street have a 40’ frontline setback and a medium lot coverage of 14%.

Due to the 4’ higher elevation that their property has over my mine will require
extensive grading and will alter a natural waterway and flood drainage on a street that
already receives extensive heavy flooding from the north, south and east. My fence will
be in jeopardy of being weaken and possibly damaged. Exhibit E

I am not opposed to the applicant redeveloping this property, however, splitting this lot
to build two houses that will require serious grading of the land will be detrimental to
properties on this street that already experienced severe flooding issues. Please note
that the applicant’s property is 4’ higher in elevation than my property with an 8’ 45
degree sloping angle. Building one large beautiful home on this lot will not require the
hazardous grading and will maintain the properties lot coverage at a low density which
this street desperately needs to maintain. Applicant could build a 3,000 sf house with a
3 car garage, covered porch and patio with a lot coverage of approximately 24%.
City of Phoenix Staff Report

2
Page 1 - The requested R1-8 zoning is compatible with existing residential
developments to the northeast

R1-8 zoning is not compatible for our street with S-1 and R1-10 properties and typical
lots 10,000sf to 14,000sf including 17,000sf and 20,000sf lots, and a property across the
street that has a 4+ acre ranch and raises miniature horses. Properties on our street
enjoy equestrian and agriculture privileges, and ample parking for our outdoor hobbies
and multiple vehicles

The most serious aspect of this proposal is the flooding issues that 12th Street
experiences.
The applicant will be increasing the lot density from 13% to 39%. It is imperative that
this street stay low density with properties that have a small percentage of lot coverage
due to the extreme flooding issues. Exhibit A. Lot coverage is the percentage of the
total lot area that is covered by impervious (inflexible) surface. Impervious surfaces are
regulated because, when more land is covered with buildings and pavement, water
runoff can cause drainage problems on that property and to neighboring properties. S-1
zoning has a 20% lot coverage. R1-8 has a 40% lot coverage. Typical properties on this
street have 11% to 19% lot coverage. My property is at 11%. The medium is 14%. The
applicant’s property will have 39% coverage. The applicant states his lot coverage as
33%, however, the Staff Report was based on a 2,300 sqft property and failed to include
the covered patio and porch in the calculations which is required. His lot currently
with the one house has 13% lot coverage.
12th Street backs Lookout Mountain Golf Course and their large retention basin. During
heavy rainstorms this basin will overflow into the 30’ designated Moon Valley Wash
and then to our street. Besides the overflow of floodwater from the Moon Valley Wash,
our street receives diverted flood water from the northern hillside properties located
near the base of Lookout Mountain Preserves and from the south from North Mountain
Preserves. These properties were not designed to retain their own flood water. Hillside
9 Subdivision (north) in particular has two large manmade washes that divert their
rainwater and debris to 12th Street. Exhibit C, map of subdivision and Lookout

3
Mountain Preserves. The Fairway at The Pointe and The Summit at the Pointe are
Subdivisions north and east that divert their flood water to the golf course and Moon
Valley Wash behind 12th Street. Exhibit D. Our street gets extensive flood water,
debris, garbage, and even rock boulders from the north and from the south.

There is currently a new civil lawsuit that was filed on January 20, 2023, by the
Villages Homeowners Association due to their flooding problems. The Villages
subdivision is directly south of our street, across Roberts Road, and backs the same golf
course. There are ten homes and the common areas that are getting flooded. The
lawsuit case number is CV2023-001069. The flood water that they receive originates
from the North Mountain Preserves which flows down the golf course, past, and
unfortunately into their subdivision, and then to the Moon Valley Wash on 12th Street.
Depending on what the solution is for the flooding of this subdivision, our street could
be receiving even more flood water in the future if/when water is diverted from
entering the Villages subdivision.

The combination of these two property alterations are going to be devastating to
homeowners on 12th Street.

The applicant’s proposal does not respect local conditions and it does not include large
setbacks nor does it prevent a negative impact on the surrounding area.

The applicant’s proposed two properties with their 20’ front set back will jet out in front
of the current houses and will be aesthetically unappealing and block the neighbor’s
views of the mountains, golf course, and street.

4
Applicant’s survey has the neighbor to the north encroaching onto the applicant’s
property 1.5’. To adhere to required side setbacks the applicant will have to build their
fence on top of the neighbor’s driveway and into their backyard. If they elect to give
this area to their neighbor and move their side set back instead, they would no longer
conform to zoning ordinances. This issue needs to be address to determine the actual
side setbacks applicant will use to determine if another variance will be required.
Exhibit H.

Page 4, #4 Site Plan – Proposal
The applicant does not meet the minimum lot width for R1-8 zoning which is 70’. The
applicant proposed lot split will have 62’ lot widths.

In every re-zoning case that I have read and/or attended there is a paragraph in the
Staff Report that states:

Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.

North Mountain Village Committee Staff Report dated May 5th 2023 states that the
applicant does not meet the lot width for R1-8, however, does not provide this
statement and instead indicates that the applicant won’t have to comply with zoning
ordinances. Per the Staff Report, the applicant’s site can be platted as a two-lot
subdivision under the Conventional Subdivision Option and the lots would be able to
meet all the development standards. From what I have read/researched the lots will
still have to conform to applicable city or state regulations. Exempting the applicant
from having to comply with zoning ordinances defeats the purpose of zoning which is
to protect neighborhoods with standards to prevent negative impacts on their
properties. It is discriminating and biased indicating that larger more expensive houses
have more rights and privileges than owners of affordable housing.
ARTICLE 1109.2. LOT AREA AND DIMENSION: Any lot, after this Ordinance or
amendments thereto become effective, shall not be reduced in any manner below the
lot area and dimension requirements of this Ordinance for the zoning district in which it
is located, or if a lot is already less than the minimums so required, such lot area or
dimension shall not be further reduced.
One of the goals outlined in Phoenix’s General Plan: “Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative
impact(s) on the residential properties. “

Page 5, #9 Community Input Summary

5
The applicant stated at the Village Committee meeting that they had sent out
notification letters to the neighborhood. I did not receive a letter, nor in talking with the
neighbors on my street did any of them receive a notification letter. Ms. Committee
Member Perez who lives within the 600 ft radius and has S-1 zoning, stated at this
meeting that she did not receive a letter either. After this meeting I canvased the area
with the addresses written down of neighbors who should have received this
notification and I could not find anyone who received a letter.
Page 5, Interdepartmental Comments
#11 Water Services Department –
Properties on this street are not connected to the city sewer system and have septic
systems, including the applicant’s property. A private builder installed a sewer line on
our street in 2007. Due to our rolling street the sewer line was placed much higher than
the typical required depth. I was told my property could not connect to the sewer line.
It is unknown if the applicant can tap into the sewer line and might have to install new
septic systems. Due to his high density lot coverage and the square footage needed for
septic systems, it might not be possible to install septic systems. This was not addressed
in the Water Services letter.

In Summary:

One of the goals outlined in Phoenix’s General Plan:

Every neighborhood and community should have a level of certainty.

6
Thank you for your time,
Monta L. Redd
13827 N. 12th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85022
monta@cox.net 602-942-3069 landline

Exhibit A

Exhibit C
Hillside Subdivision wash
12th Street

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit H