Attachment G - Opposition - Z-61-22-7.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
77108 characters
2/2/23, 4:11 PM
Preserve PHX Mail - Please Find a Creative Solution for Mercy Hill Church
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747682579111534780&simpl=msg-f%3A1747682579111534780
1/1
Preserve PHX <hello@preservephx.org>
Please Find a Creative Solution for Mercy Hill Church
1 message
janettray@aol.com <janettray@aol.com>
Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Reply-To: janettray@aol.com
To: "shane@trumontgroup.com" <shane@trumontgroup.com>
Cc: "hello@preservephx.org" <hello@preservephx.org>
Dear Mr. Essert,
I'm writing in support of preservation efforts for the Mercy Hill Church. The sanctuary is beautiful! It would wonderful if you
can find a creative way to preserve it.
Preservation of our wonderful local architectural and cultural history greatly enhances our community. Please help protect
this part of our cultural and architectural identity.
Janet Traylor
6502 N. Central Avenue, E401
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Cell: 602-432-7390
ATTACHMENT G
2/2/23, 3:28 PM
Preserve PHX Mail - Mercy Hill Church Preservation
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747714041812157107&simpl=msg-f%3A1747714041812157107
1/1
Preserve PHX <hello@preservephx.org>
Mercy Hill Church Preservation
1 message
Lisa I <femmedegaul@gmail.com>
Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:06 PM
To: shane@trumontgroup.com
Cc: "hello@preservephx.org" <hello@preservephx.org>
Hello Mr. Essert,
I understand that your development company is in negotiations for the current Mercy Hill Church site with potential plans
to demolish the building. I'm a native Phoenician who strongly favors maintaining Phoenix historic architecture, especially
because we have lost so much already. While I'm aware that the building does not technically qualify for the historic
register, it remains a historic and important building in the history of Phoenix growth. Perhaps it could be incorporated
into a community building and utilized by future residents, l with a one-of-a-kind history that may increase livability and
sales on the property. We have had so much of our history removed that Phoenix will no longer be unique in its own
right. You can take the lead, promote health neighborhood relationships and become good stewards of our Phoenician
legacy and commit to saving the Mercy Hill Church.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Irwin
2/2/23, 3:25 PM
Preserve PHX Mail - Mercy Hill Church
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747681906043690926&simpl=msg-f%3A1747681906043690926
1/1
Preserve PHX <hello@preservephx.org>
Mercy Hill Church
1 message
Michele Chinichian <micheleroya@gmail.com>
Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:35 AM
To: shane@trumontgroup.com
Bcc: hello@preservephx.org
Hi Shane,
I am writing in support of preserving Mercy Hill Church, even a compromise of some kind of it's great
historic features would be appreciated. Preservation is key, as Downtown Phoenix is turning from an
architecturally rich, artistic community to a concrete wasteland of highrises and condos. Please
preserve the charm and character of the city so it can remain an appealing and desirable place to live.
I appreciate your consideration.
Michele
1114 Grand Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 254-5599
January 6, 2023
Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee
City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE:
Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Hearing Date Jan. 9, 2023
Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:
The Grand Avenue Members Association (GAMA) represents the area within ¼ mile of Grand Avenue
from Van Buren Street to McDowell Road. Our threefold purpose is to preserve the unique character of
Lower Grand Avenue; to support elimination of blight and promote the revitalization of the
neighborhood’s core and surrounding areas; and to encourage social and economic development that
promotes sustainable practices. The subject property lies within our area of representation.
We have been in communication since July, 2022 with Trumont Development regarding their plans for
the redevelopment of the Mercy Hill Church site. We were encouraged that they reached out to us early in
the design process. From the beginning of our discussions, we alerted them to various neighborhood
concerns, the most important of which was preservation of some portion of the history and
character of the site as part of their new apartment design. The concern was raised by
stakeholders at a neighborhood meeting conducted by GAMA on September 20 and at open GAMA
regular meetings in October and December. We provided formal comments to Trumont in a letter dated
October 2, 2022.
Our request, in brief, was that the most visible and significant parts of the existing church
building be incorporated into the building design. The portion in question included the main
Sanctuary, the arcade extending along Fillmore, and the iconic, and unique, bell tower. These features
encumber about 7,000 square feet of a roughly 106,000 square foot site, and thus we do not
believe this to be an unreasonable request.
As examples, we pointed out to Trumont that successful projects that incorporate elements of earlier
neighborhood character include “The Logan at Osborn” (3rd Ave. & Osborn) which incorporated a part of
the Stewart Title Building, and “The Governor” in the Miracle Mile area which will incorporate parts of
the old Safeway store. Other examples include “The Stewart” at Central & McKinley and the pending
redevelopment of the City Center Hotel site.
We contend that retaining elements of earlier construction as part of a new development promotes
creative placemaking and contributes to the sense of place and history of a neighborhood. The “scrape and
rebuild” approach proposed by Trumont erases all trace of any history on the site and does not embed the
design into the existing context.
Trumont justifies their plan by claiming the church is “not historic” and has gone to some pains to
describe why they come to this conclusion. Please note two points. (1) The above argument does not hinge
on whether or not the property is historic; it is about preserving “sense of place” using any positive and
highly visible part of the built environment that is available. And (2) numerous credentialled historic
preservation consultants, myself included, question the conclusion that the building is not historically
eligible. This is not a settled question.
Rezoning the site to WU-T5:5 will be providing this developer with a radical increase in property
entitlement and value. We believe such a windfall to the developer should come with the responsibility to
give back to the community. That is, through the rezoning, the City is creating value, and that value
should be shared by all, not just the property owner.
Therefore, we request that the Central City Village Planning Committee continue this zoning case and
request that the developer modify their design, making a good-faith attempt to satisfying the
neighborhood desire to incorporate significant elements of the church.
Sincerely,
Robert Graham, AIA
President
Grand Avenue Members Association
C:
Yassamin Ansari, CD 7
Aaron Kane, CD 7
Shane Essert, Trumont Development
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Mayor Kate Gallego
Council Districts 1-6 +8
From:
Benjamin Hall
To:
Anthony M Grande
Subject:
Zoning Case Z-61-22-7
Date:
Friday, January 6, 2023 12:36:21 PM
Hi Anthony Grande,
As a resident of the neighborhood (806 N 9th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85007) here are my following
thoughts in regards to Zoning Case Z-61-22-7
1. Zoning:
Why Would this WU Zoning be allowed to deviate from the original intended location along the light
rail if the city has no plans to extend the light rail into this community? The city T5 allows for 5
stories along the light rail ONLY. In this specific case there is no light rail at all.....
Why would the development not request to rezone as R5 like the rest of the community? The same
minimum setbacks would be established that would be aligned with what other single family and
multifamily developments in the community.
Specifically, the required 20; front setback requirement along 9th Ave. (Current proposal has a 10'
setback) Applying the same requirement would establish a cohesive landscape buffer from the
height of the building overshadowing the sidewalk.
2. Density: The property is approx. 101,700sq ft or 2.33 acres.
The surrounding community is zoned high density R5 at a ratio of 43.5 units per acre. The city
rezoned the entire community with R5 to promote this level of density. If the proposed property
aligned with the same standards as the surrounding developments in the community are required to
design to, then the property would be allowed to develop maximum 101 units. Currently they are
proposing to build 126. Which is 25 more units than what would normally be allowed.
That may seem like an insignificant number but there are still ripple effects non the less. Specifically,
in regards to the parking.
3. History:
This property and its construction are of historic significance even if it is technically not on a
preservation list. From a macro perspective, the City of Phoenix has long been criticized that we
have such little history in our building stock. This is an opportunity, to change that narrative slightly
as the community at whole has identified a reverence for the existing arch brick way and bell tower
along Fillmore.
In response to the community's outreach the developer has added "brick arcade frontage" and
"tower" to the drawing. We are pleased to see that, BUT we would like it to read "preserve original
brick frontage and bell tower". To avoid the sinful practice of making a faux brick facade deviation
during construction.
4. Use:
In the event that WU zoning is permitted. We would like to see its original intent applied to this
project. Specifically intergraded office and retail street facing spaces for the community to utilize
and participate in (via rental spaces).
Currently the project has these programed spaces insulated for the use of the community and
designated for the new residence only at the NW and SW corners of the complex. We would like to
see this building become an incubator for the community along the entire ground floor street
facades as both office and retail rental spaces that the surrounding art community can occupy as
well.
* My personal opinion is that the existing brick archways along Fillmore would make an ideal entry
into street facing business.
Much appreciated
-Benjamin
benjamin hall design
p. 602.529.2954
e. benjamin@benjaminhalldesign.com
w. www.benjaminhalldesign.com [benjaminhalldesign.com]
P.O. Box 13492, Phoenix, AZ 85002 • 602-687-7092 • info@azpreservation.org • EIN 86-0371336
January 7, 2023
Anthony Grande
Planner, Central City Village Planning Committee
Phoenix City Hall
200 West Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Anthony and Members of the Central City Village Planning Committee:
Regarding Item Z-61-22-7 for the upcoming meeting of the Central City Village Planning Committee, the
Arizona Preservation Foundation supports neighborhood and local preservation group advocacy to
preserve the historic elements of the Mercy Hill Church property and strengthen community
engagement in the design of the property’s future development.
For years, before the COVID-19 pandemic, APF volunteers organized walking tours of historic Grand
Avenue during the Grand Avenue Festival. The offices of several preservation related organizations,
including APF, are housed in the neighborhood. The stock of vintage and historic buildings along and
adjacent to Grand Avenue is impressive and an important social and economic asset to our capital city.
Any unnecessary chipping away of this unique neighborhood’s character would be a detriment.
Thank you for considering the future of this historic property and its neighborhood.
Sincerely yours,
Jim McPherson
President, Board of Directors
Arizona Preservation Foundation
cc:
Board Members, Arizona Preservation Foundation
Ashley Harder, Preserve Phoenix
Beatrice Moore, Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
Bob Graham, Grand Avenue Members Association
G.G. George, Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
Dennis Michael Burke
1126 W. Edgemont Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
January 6, 2023
Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department 200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St. Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment Hearing Date Jan. 9, 2023
Dear Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:
The Mercy Hill Church is a gem of a building. It is impossible not to see it as a future gallery or restaurant space
for a dynamic neighborhood and arts district. If the developer cannot see that, then the wrong developer is
engaged. Central city developers need to think differently than far-suburban developers who are used to
demolishing strip malls and fast-food restaurants. This is not that.
The people who laid those red bricks one by one are probably all gone now, but they made a contribution to
our town that should not be tossed aside. By remembering their artistic work and by enjoying the shade of the
long arcade they provided us, we deepen the value of our community.
Please deny this application for short-sighted development and insist on something much better, or simply allow
more time to pass for the right development to come along, as it will.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Burke
Encanto Manor Neighborhood
(602) 908-4067
January 6, 2023
Mr. Anthony Grande
City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Zoning Section
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ. 855003
RE: SEC 9th & Fillmore Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am the managing partner of Savana, the owner of the property on the northwest corner of 9th
Avenue and Fillmore – directly across from Mercy Hill Church. We have owned the property for
15+ years and have planned a neighborhood-friendly residential project on the currently vacant
lot. When planning our project, we very much appreciated the historic relevance of the nearby
buildings as well as the neighborhood feel of the surrounding area. As a result, we planned a
modest two-level set of buildings, despite the zoning allowance to go much higher.
With respect to the above-mentioned zoning request, I have two concerns:
• The developers have attempted to incorporate a small portion of the historic beauty of
Mercy Hill Church through the addition of the brick arcade to the north side. However,
this strikes me as a minor concession given the beauty and historic value of the
property. I would like to see more of the historic building preserved and incorporated
into the project design.
• The setbacks for the project seem small given the scale of the building they are
proposing. There are no buildings of this scope in the immediate neighborhood and to
consume such a large footprint with a 50 ft high structure is imposing, and not in line
with the neighborhood. I realize they have the zoning to go to this height, but I would
recommend preserving or expanding the setback from the street and sidewalk to better
align with the building height.
Many thanks for considering our concern for the aesthetics of this project as it impacts the
neighborhood.
My best,
Nora Hannah
Managing Member, Savana, LLC
January 9, 2023
Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Hearing Date Jan. 9, 2023
Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:
I am a business owner, artist, and community member who has been on Grand Avenue since
2013. My first introduction to Grand Avenue was working for a creative company that moved to
Grand Avenue because they were priced out of Roosevelt Row.
I am submitting a formal “NO” on Agenda Item #8 for Zoning Case Z-61-22-7.
Many of the residents and business owners support a higher density living development that
would bring new business to the area, but this development still has much work to do to
integrate in a meaningful way with the community.
Their designs do not show research or connection to the vibrancy of the surrounding community,
and look like every other development going up left and right in this city. Preservation of the
visual sense of place of Grand Avenue is paramount, and the Mercy Hill Church has a stylized
architecture that is classically recognizable to the area. The elements of the main Sanctuary,
Arcade extending along Fillmore, and the iconic bell tower must be preserved. If not, this
development will continue the trajectory of Phoenix into architectural mediocrity.
The parking plan also needs attention. The Triangle Neighborhood is already tight to maneuver
in high density areas and there must be more thought into the mobility and ability for vehicular
traffic as the street parking should remain free and ample for visitors to the district. This is
another major lesson to learn from other cities, and even present existing developments.
It is imperative these matters be thought through past economic gain. There are many other
types of value that exist in the world, and that is a big part as to why Grand Avenue is what it is
today.
Sincerely,
Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com
From:
Ben Overbaugh
To:
Anthony M Grande
Subject:
Rezoning Case Z-61-22-7
Date:
Sunday, January 8, 2023 10:10:29 AM
Hello Anthony,
Frankly put, this development should not be approved with a reduced amount of required
parking inside the development.
I am a resident and a home-owner on 10th ave and Fillmore St. I drive down Fillmore
multiple times per day. It's a great street that is rarely crowded. I am concerned that a
consideration is being made to reduce the number of required parking spaces for this project.
I have lived in a gated apartment complex in a nice area of Phoenix that did not have enough
parking for all of their residents. This required unlucky residents to park out on the street,
away from their residences. On one such occasion, my catalytic converter was stolen.
Forcing residents in this proposed apartment complex to park on the street will have many
adverse effects. I believe crime will increase, as people will learn that cars are parked where
the owners can not see or hear them. Traffic will drastically increase at the same time that the
effective driving space on Fillmore Street and 9th Ave will decrease due to cars parked on
both sides of the road. This will increase danger for pedestrians, bicyclists, and for children
and animals who live and play in the neighborhood. This will also increase hit and run
accidents as vehicles are forced to squeeze down narrow crowded streets.
I am all for community development, but it needs to be done in a manner that maintains or
increases the quality of life for the current residents in the community.
I will repeat my statement that this development should not be approved with a reduced
amount of required parking inside the development.
Thank you for your time.
-Ben Overbaugh
From:
Courtney Davis
To:
Anthony M Grande
Subject:
SEC 9th Ave & Fillmore Rezoning
Date:
Tuesday, January 10, 2023 5:07:29 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Mr. Grande,
Know this is a late correspondence given the virtual hearing on this matter is scheduled to
commence an hour from now. As the owner of the block between 9th & 10th Avenues on the north
side of Grand Avenue, I wanted to express my only concern regarding the proposed apartment
complex where Mercy Hill Church currently occupies the land. That concern is the amount of street
parking that is built into the developer’s plan (in addition to the expected increase that will occur
naturally). Specifically, I’ve noticed a discrepancy in the developer’s conceptual site plan drawing
which shows street parking that is “tucked in” to the site’s property along Fillmore Street. Their
conceptual building perspective – a simulated overhead look of Fillmore Street – shows that the
parking is not tucked in to the property, but shown as extended out into the street.
After seeing Taylor Street turn into a dangerous one lane gauntlet because of insufficient on-site
parking for the existing apartments just west of 7th Avenue; I would hate to see the same thing
happen to Fillmore and 9th Avenue. I’m hoping the final approval requires the developer of the
proposed apartment complex to create parking along the street that will not “shrink” Fillmore down
to effectively a one lane road.
Regards.
Courtney C. Davis
President
Sterling Food Service
920 Grand Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 252-9608
Mercy Hill Church Development Case Z-61-22-7.
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Dear City of Phoenix,
I would like to request that this case be continued at the Planning
Commission meeting on February 2nd for additional time to work out a
compromise.
With a new look at the project it seems that the red brick colonnade,
bell tower and sanctuary are architecturally significant character buildings
that contribute to the rich history of the Historic Grand Avenue district and
would enhance the project while creating a memorial to the 80 years of
church history at the site.
The 4-story project should step down to the adjoining single story
neighborhood.
The traffic congestion at 7th Avenue; onto Taylor Street; and onto
Grand Avenue needs mitigation as ingress and egress at all these points
will be difficult especially at rush hour.
$1,400 for a studio apartment and $ 2,000 for a 2 bedroom apartment
is not affordable. There need to be some designated affordable units. What
young person such as students could afford this.
Bob Graham, President of the Grand Avenue Members Assoc. has
re-worked the Norris site plan, showing how the sanctuary, bell tower and
colonnades can be preserved while not taking away any parking, or rentable
sq. footage from the site. It actually adds sq. footage via rentable sanctuary
space, and makes the footprint of the structure integrated into the
surrounding small scale neighborhood better.
A variety in the footprint is need so it does not create a sheer wall on
all sides and offers more green space.
Lower level small commercial spaces (including art studio space) to
create more vibrancy and welcoming exterior is needed. Along with creative
design features that will tie into the adjoining neighborhood character.
Sincerely,
From:
Steve Weiss
To:
Anthony M Grande
Subject:
Please continue case Z-61-22-7 at Planning Commission
Date:
Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:38:53 PM
To whom it may concern,
There is a tendency to replace an originally well-built structure with a less well-built structure
in order to generate profit. The trouble is, when the really well-built vintage building stock is
replaced by buildings that think more about profitability than legacy and community, a
neighborhood ends up with mediocrity and a lack of historical significance. Our world
becomes lesser for the sake of profit.
The red brick colonnade. bell tower and sanctuary are architecturally significant character
buildings that contribute to the rich history of the Historic Grand Avenue district and would
enhance the project while creating a memorial to the 80 years of church history at the site.
Building a 4-story typical apartment complex with no recognition of what’s replaced is an
insult to Phoenix residents and is an overwhelming addition to the character of an existing
neighborhood.
I urge the Planning Commission to continue this request for approval, and consider a better
compromise approach for the community and ultimately, the respect of the developer for
LISTENING.
Thank you,
Steve Weiss
2938 North 15th Drive
Phoenix AZ
==========================
Steve Weiss
Executive Director
No Festival Required
Independent Cinema
steve@nofestivalrequired.com
cell-602-432-0641
https://www.nofestivalrequired.com [nofestivalrequired.com]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nofestivalrequired [linkedin.com]
Celebrating 20 years of Truly Independent Programming
2002-2022 and counting!
From:
Snoodmen -
To:
Anthony M Grande
Cc:
Council District 7 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject:
MercyHill Church Development #Z-61-22-7
Date:
Monday, January 30, 2023 3:51:46 PM
Attachments:
Secondary Snoodmen Letter Z-61-22 Mercy Hill Aparment Redevelopment.pdf
Snoodmen Package regarding Z-61-22 Mercy Hill Aparment Redevelopment 2023-01-30 at 3.39.53 PM.pdf
Hi there ~
Please see the attached with my formal "NO" stance regarding the Zoning Case #Z-61-22-7. I
have included both my letter individually as well as a PDF that includes elements referenced
in the letter.
Thank you ~
Michelle Meyer
CEO + H.S.I.C.
SNOODMEN, LLC
847-363-2807
www.snoodcity.com [snoodcity.com]
ᐧ
January 27, 2023
Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix
RE: Z-61-22-7, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Dear Phoenix Planning Commissioners,
Greetings, I am writing again with a stance of a “NO”, or a continuance for Zoning Case
Z-61-22-7, known as the Mercy Hill Church Development.
The reason for my letter is 3-fold. One is to support the community that I have been part
of since 2013, two is to speak to high priority adjustments the project should consider, and last
to address the letter sent to this committee by Mr. Paul Johnson.
I know that often you do not receive many case letters, but it does not mean they do not
care. Not everyone has the time or ability to craft a response, even when it is so important.
Many have a combination of work, families, and businesses to run. Statement requests often
come on short notice, so I hope you highly consider the weight of the people who have taken
the time to write letters, the place they hold in the community, and how many people their voices
represent. I am the founder of Snood City: an art collective and the business owner. I alone
directly represent the voices of 15 people who work with me and are based on Grand Ave, with
500+ in my local network. It is the developers sole job, which has full dedication of time, money,
and resources to make sure their projects go through as they want. This is an advantage for
them to the fact that people are busy working to get by and oftentimes don’t even know when a
decision like this is on the docket.
Many agreeable compromises have been set forth by community members. Highly
notable is the rework of the site plan by architect Bob Graham (President of the Grand Ave
Members Assoc.) to preserve the sanctuary, bell tower and colonnades which does not take
away (it in fact adds) rentable sq. footage space. Also important to consider is the footprint of
the structure. It should be dynamic and integrate into the surrounding neighborhood better. The
building should not simply be a large box with towering walls that dwarfs existing homes. There
is a unique opportunity here for the type of rentable space offered, and the project should
seriously consider small commercial spaces at the ground level. There is a high demand for
downtown studio spaces, especially for artists, which would further support the draw of Grand
Avenue. Incorporating spaces of this nature will be a big win for the neighborhood. Overall, this
development needs a serious creative design rework. Take a trip to Grand Ave and look at the
personality. We do not want something that looks like every other development in every other
city, including this one. There is no originality with what has been presented by the developers
and we demand better.
Finally to address the letter by Mr. Paul Johnson:
The stance of Mr. Johnson’s letter to this board, submitted on Jan 5, 2023 is
aggravating. To call a studio apartment rented at $1,200 “affordable” is laughable. It is
common sentiment that the local housing market is almost criminal. The standard is that
when applying to a rental you must have 3x rent for income. That means, someone has
to be making $50k per year to cover their expenses just to live in a studio apartment.
How is that affordable housing? Additionally, his comment with intention to “[...extend the
benefits that have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to
West of 7th Ave“] What are those benefits? Terrible parking and street maneuverability?
Bland architecture? Unused 400 sq ft. gym amenities? The notion that the Grand Ave
community wants anything like what has happened on Roosevelt Row is absurd. It puts
on full display the gap in understanding of the local ideology and what is desired. The
reason Grand Ave exists is despite these kinds of developers. Business owners support
high density projects that will bring more people to the area, but not at the cost of the
soul of the community. That is why Grand Ave is even attractive in the first place. It is
interesting and unique. When I look at Roosevelt Row, I don’t see “high quality” projects,
I see cookie cutter, so-called luxury highrises. Grand Ave has its own sense of place,
and we want to keep it that way.
I challenge this Board and the Mercy Hill developers to really question what their driving factor is
for this project. Meaningful communication and readjustment of what a “true urban project”
means for the Grand Avenue community is essential, and has not yet been achieved.
Thank you for your time,
Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com
January 27, 2023
Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix
RE: Z-61-22-7, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Dear Phoenix Planning Commissioners,
Greetings, I am writing again with a stance of a “NO”, or a continuance for Zoning Case
Z-61-22-7, known as the Mercy Hill Church Development.
The reason for my letter is 3-fold. One is to support the community that I have been part
of since 2013, two is to speak to high priority adjustments the project should consider, and last
to address the letter sent to this committee by Mr. Paul Johnson.
I know that often you do not receive many case letters, but it does not mean they do not
care. Not everyone has the time or ability to craft a response, even when it is so important.
Many have a combination of work, families, and businesses to run. Statement requests often
come on short notice, so I hope you highly consider the weight of the people who have taken
the time to write letters, the place they hold in the community, and how many people their voices
represent. I am the founder of Snood City: an art collective and the business owner. I alone
directly represent the voices of 15 people who work with me and are based on Grand Ave, with
500+ in my local network. It is the developers sole job, which has full dedication of time, money,
and resources to make sure their projects go through as they want. This is an advantage for
them to the fact that people are busy working to get by and oftentimes don’t even know when a
decision like this is on the docket.
Many agreeable compromises have been set forth by community members. Highly
notable is the rework of the site plan by architect Bob Graham (President of the Grand Ave
Members Assoc.) to preserve the sanctuary, bell tower and colonnades which does not take
away (it in fact adds) rentable sq. footage space. Also important to consider is the footprint of
the structure. It should be dynamic and integrate into the surrounding neighborhood better. The
building should not simply be a large box with towering walls that dwarfs existing homes. There
is a unique opportunity here for the type of rentable space offered, and the project should
seriously consider small commercial spaces at the ground level. There is a high demand for
downtown studio spaces, especially for artists, which would further support the draw of Grand
Avenue. Incorporating spaces of this nature will be a big win for the neighborhood. Overall, this
development needs a serious creative design rework. Take a trip to Grand Ave and look at the
personality. We do not want something that looks like every other development in every other
city, including this one. There is no originality with what has been presented by the developers
and we demand better.
Finally to address the letter by Mr. Paul Johnson:
The stance of Mr. Johnson’s letter to this board, submitted on Jan 5, 2023 is
aggravating. To call a studio apartment rented at $1,200 “affordable” is laughable. It is
common sentiment that the local housing market is almost criminal. The standard is that
when applying to a rental you must have 3x rent for income. That means, someone has
to be making $50k per year to cover their expenses just to live in a studio apartment.
How is that affordable housing? Additionally, his comment with intention to “[...extend the
benefits that have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to
West of 7th Ave“] What are those benefits? Terrible parking and street maneuverability?
Bland architecture? Unused 400 sq ft. gym amenities? The notion that the Grand Ave
community wants anything like what has happened on Roosevelt Row is absurd. It puts
on full display the gap in understanding of the local ideology and what is desired. The
reason Grand Ave exists is despite these kinds of developers. Business owners support
high density projects that will bring more people to the area, but not at the cost of the
soul of the community. That is why Grand Ave is even attractive in the first place. It is
interesting and unique. When I look at Roosevelt Row, I don’t see “high quality” projects,
I see cookie cutter, so-called luxury highrises. Grand Ave has its own sense of place,
and we want to keep it that way.
I challenge this Board and the Mercy Hill developers to really question what their driving factor is
for this project. Meaningful communication and readjustment of what a “true urban project”
means for the Grand Avenue community is essential, and has not yet been achieved.
Thank you for your time,
Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3,006 sq ft
37,694 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
MULTI STORY APARTMENTS
MULTI STORY APARTMENTS
MULTI STORY APARTMENTS
CARRIAGE UNITS
ADAPTIVE
USE
SANCTUARY
Footprint
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL SITE PLAN
Mercy Hill Church Site Redevelopment
Scale 1" = 20'
Apartment footprint and parking count roughly equivalent to developer proposal
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee Members,
My name is Paul Johnson. I am writing to express my support for Z-61-22-7, a high quality
multifamily project located at the SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. As a disclosure I am a partner
with the church on the project.
As a long time supporter of downtown Phoenix, this project helps us extend the benefits that
have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to West of 7th Ave. As
high quality, high density project west of 7th Ave will help bring much more investment dollars
to a side of the street that has had scattered development, but nothing that reaches the quality
of project being proposed.
Along with my partners, the church, are a supporter of improving the West of 7th ave, because
we intend to stay a part of this area. We believe that improving this side of the street, will
benefit all the residences and business that exist there.
In addition to this, the requested zoning is just good land use. Much of the existing proposed
property is already zoned R-5, so it could already go multifamily. However, by rezoning to WU
Code, ti allows staff and the developer the flexibility necessary to create a true urban project,
rather than trying to design around what the existing site would allow, which would result in a
less cohesive project. City staff, has recommended approval, I believe because it is next to a
major arterial, and they know that if this site is developed hodgepodge the area will suffer.
They recommended it as having a strong basis for multifamily at this location.
The units are not subsidized housing that is often misunderstood as the only version of
affordable housing. This is market rent housing, that is affordable for middle class families and
individuals who are finding it more difficult to find housing in our existing market. The product
is designed to be more affordable to the average family or young professional.
Last, the existing buildings are old and are way beyond the structural lifespan of the buildings.
They have no historic value, and currently, unless we can make a change, they create a
significant financial burden on the church. This project allows the church to stay in the area
providing their services, and benefits them and the neighborhood with a quality project.
For these reasons, I strongly support Project Z-61-22-7. I hope you will, too.
Sincerely,
Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
2/2/23, 3:48 PM
Preserve PHX Mail - Mercy Hill Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1756555470027866818&simpl=msg-f%3A1756555470027866818
1/1
Preserve PHX <hello@preservephx.org>
Mercy Hill Development
1 message
Jennifer Kruse <jenkr55@gmail.com>
Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:17 AM
To: mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
Cc: Hello@preservephx.org
Dear Mayor Gallego,
As a homeowner in the Triangle Neighborhood, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed development by
Trumont Group on the Mercy Hill Church location at 745 W Fillmore.
The Triangle Neighborhood has a historic and eclectic character unique to Phoenix that needs to be preserved. The
Mercy Hill building is a significant piece of our neighborhood's history and it is unacceptable that its historic features are
not being preserved as part of the development plans.
We are asking that the church façade, sanctuary, and arched arcade should be incorporated into the new development.
These character-defining features are in excellent condition and part of the original 1946 design by Lescher & Mahoney,
and the footprint of this section of the church is small considering the overall acreage of the site.
I urge you to consider the concerns of the homeowners and residents in the area. We need to ensure that any new
development fits the character of our neighborhood and is respectful of the history and heritage of the area.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Kruse
From:
Preserve PHX
To:
G Hawk
Cc:
Anthony M Grande; Council District 7 PCC; Beatrice Moore; gggfabgal@outlook.com; Sarah Stockham
Subject:
Re: Mercy Hill Church
Date:
Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:19:16 PM
Hello,
Forwarding to Sarah Stockton who is managing Anthony's role while he is out of office.
Thank you!
PreservePHX.org [preservephx.org] | Facebook [facebook.com] | Instagram
[instagram.com]
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:46 PM G Hawk <hawksalvage@gmail.com> wrote:
Good morning,
As a retired individual who now owns a small business on Grand Avenue I find myself
caught in the middle between the gentrification and growth of the downtown area and the
preservation of what few older structures and regions of the city remain. I am in favor of
supporting the increasing population of the Phoenix area by providing housing that can
accommodate them but I also think it's critically important to make sure that we preserve
what we have that reminds us of what Phoenix was not that long ago.
Early residents of Phoenix were industrious and imaginative. They created a land that
became enterprising and fertile and this helped the valley grow to what it is today. If we give
up the imagination and forget the fertility of the neighborhoods we run the risk of losing the
character that's been building for generations.
Minor changes with the design plans and the preservation of at least parts of the Mercy Hill
church will maintain some of the history and continuity that it holds with other structures in
downtown Phoenix, ie. the Encanto Park clubhouse. Not only will the complete demolition
of the Mercy Hill church damage this relationship but I'm afraid the trickle down effect will
have a negative impact on the surrounding historic districts. Del Norte Pl., Roosevelt,
Oakland, Woodland, FQ story are just a few that may be negatively impacted.
Thank you for your time and thank you for your continued hard work.
G Hawk
Grand ave small business owner
602-790-8365
February 9, 2023
Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee
City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Hearing Date February 13, 2023
Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:
Vice Mayor Yassmin Ansari and Mayor Kate Gallego are responsible for upholding the
commitments they promised to the citizens when they ran for their positions. The Central City
Village Planning Committee is also responsible for this commitment. In my neighborhood,
District 7, we are waiting to see if this committee, the Vice Mayor, and the Mayor are serious
about those promises.
The potential rezoning of MercyHill Church (Z-61-22-7) does nothing to uphold those
promises. The site currently houses a handful of low-income seniors who will be displaced due
to this rezoning. The incoming developers plan to charge what they described as “market-rate”
housing at a whopping $1,400 for studio apartments. I can guarantee you that when I speak with
the constituents of this district, from 7th St. to 7th Ave, ASU housing, PAX, Ave, The Rey, and
beyond, they are dismayed by this. When I further explain the issues surrounding Z-61-22-7,
many are disheartened to hear that this is happening underneath the leadership of the Vice Mayor
and Mayor, who both ran on platforms that are diametrically opposed to redevelopment plans
such as these.
There is nothing in this development that contributes to sustainable growth that Vice
Mayor Ansari has addressed numerous times as the city rapidly expands. No solar panels, no
canopy coverages, and certainly nothing remotely close to a green building, as was discussed at
the COP27 meeting. There is nothing in this development that contributes to affordable housing,
where Mayor Gallego has stated Phoenix residents need “rent that makes sense.” In fact, this
development has already led to the demolition of a single-family dwelling on 9th Ave to pave a
new parking lot for MercyHill’s hopeful new church they wish to develop across the street from
the current existing church.
These developments are discouraging, but they are not set in stone. The promises made to
Phoenix constituents in District 7 cannot be lip service. There is an opportunity to develop
Phoenix in a mindful way allowing the city to negotiate on behalf of citizens, and not on behalf
of developers. This parcel is a massive piece of land and could be an incredible opportunity for a
developer whose interests are more aligned with the promises made by our elected officials. I
implore this committee to oppose this zoning measure, as I implore the City Council to fulfill the
promises they made on the campaign trail and bring green, affordable development to our
downtown neighborhood.
Thank you for your time,
Mollie McCurdy
Triangle Neighborhood Homeowner and Voter
C: Yassamin Ansari, CD 7
Aaron Kane, CD 7
Shane Essert, Trumont Development
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Mayor Kate Gallego
Council Districts 1-6 +8
From:
Preserve PHX
To:
Beatrice Moore; Robert Graham; rbrevoort@cox.net; mollieannemccurdy@gmail.com;
Benjamin@benjaminhalldesign.com; Aaron T Kane; Sarah Stockham
Cc:
anthony@mercyhillphoenix.com; Shane@trumontgroup.com; Anthony M Grande
Subject:
Follow Up to Community Discussion 7-9-23
Date:
Thursday, February 9, 2023 7:49:31 PM
Hello Anthony, Sarah and Aaron,
I am following up as I agreed to share an update as to todays' discussions between community
organizations and the applicant for Z-61-22-7. Tonight Shane Essert, applicant for Z-61-22-7
hosted a 30 minute meeting with members of the Community in preparation for his agenda
item being heard at Monday's Central City Planning Committee meeting. Organizations
represented were Grand Avenue Members Association, Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation,
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition, Preserve Phoenix as well as residents and builders
that live within the Triangle Neighborhood. Shane presented that the plan being put forth at
Monday's meeting will be the plan presented to the Village at its last meeting in January
except that there will be an inclusion of the bell tower in their setback, it was indicated that
they are willing to see it apply as a stipulation to their requested zoning. I believe no other
adjustments have been made to address the various community concerns brought forth in both
private and public discussions with the developer. The applicant has declined to determine the
feasibility of retaining the Sanctuary, colonnade and bell tower as requested by the
Community and will not accept a stipulation to preserve the Sanctuary and colonnade.
As you can imagine the community is incredibly disappointed and OPPOSES the plan as
presented. So, in preparations for Monday's meeting we are seeking to better understand what
stipulations may be under consideration for the proposed plan and what community benefit
they may or may not offer. We are also looking to better address the developer's plan for
live/work units and artist work spaces within the plan and if there are or are not stipulations
applied for those elements. Lastly, could a breakdown be made to address the affordable
housing units that exist on the property and an update as to what the planning effort is to retain
those critical needed units within the neighborhood. Answering some or all of these questions
would be greatly appreciated as the community tries to advocate for a better plan than what
has been presented in the past.
Thank you for your assistance in coordinating this particular case with our community groups
and with concerned neighbors. Everyone's commitment to transparency and acting in a cordial
nature has made this process easier and is appreciated so very much.
Have a great evening,
Ashley Harder
PreservePHX.org [preservephx.org] | Facebook [facebook.com] | Instagram
[instagram.com]
Feb 10, 2023
Central City Village Planning Committee Members
C/O Sarah Stockham
City of Phoenix Planning Department
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Planning Committee Members (Re: Z-61-22-7)
Because so much time has passed since my original letter, I am updating it here.
As the Director of Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation, an Arizona non-profit
corporation, our mission has been to preserve the history and arts along the Historic
Grand Avenue corridor (McDowell south to Van Buren). As part of that mandate, I
organized the Grand Avenue Festival for 8 years, an award winning arts Festival that
showcased the arts and history in the area.
Independent of that effort, my partner and I have restored and adaptively re-used
vintage and historic buildings in the area for over 30 years (including the Bragg’s Pie
Factory building), providing affordable art studios and incubator business spaces.
Trumont Group’s residential design falls well short of a quality residential project, or a
mix of uses, that Phoenix should be building in older inner city neighborhoods at this
point in time. We have learned enough about sustainability, affordability, adaptive
reuse, interconnectivity, and pedestrian friendliness, that we should be demanding a
more integrated, financially accessible, less disruptive, and functional outcome.
Preserving a small 7,000 sq. ft. section of a sprawling 80 year old church complex, not
only lends a missing sustainability component to the project, but helps create a
needed step-down to the small scale residential to the north and west, softening the
sheer 4-story walls. The character contributing architecture (Lescher and Mahoney)
makes for a tie-in to the adjoining and nearby vintage and historic structures.
However, at every turn Mr. Essert has not deviated from his original line that the
footprint of the bell tower, colonnades and sanctuary are not worth saving, or not
possible to save. Instead of looking for creative ways for a successful adaptive reuse
that would enhance his new construction, he has steadfastly looked for ways the re-
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
1301 Grand Avenue #8
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.391.4016
use will not work. Developers don’t necessarily have to be creative, but they do need to
know how to hire creative designers and architects and give them leeway to work their
magic. And to actually listen to, and successfully address, community concerns.
We have heard repeatedly from Mr. Essert and the sellers (MercyHill Church) how
much they love the neighborhood - but always couched in how much they think the
neighborhood should transform to reflect the rampant development to the east side
of 7th Avenue. We know if that were to happen, development pressure would lead to
the destruction of much of our delightful, small scale neighborhood. This will be only
the second commercial 4-story building in our district (the first being a Holiday Inn
Express buffered by the large expanse of University Park).
Because it is our hope that the historic fabric along, and in close proximity to Grand
Avenue and the original Route 60, will exist far into the future for new generations, we
must oppose this rezoning in its current form. Where are the much needed affordable
housing units? Where is a courteous step-down to the adjoining small residential?
Where are the art studios and small commercial ground floor spaces requested by the
neighborhood early on? And where is the preservation of key character-contributing
church elements honoring 80 years of church history?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely yours,
Beatrice Moore (signed electronically)
Beatrice Moore, Director
1
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
HISTORIC FRANKLIN SCHOOL
February 10, 2023
Via Email
Central City Village Planning Committee
RE: February 13, 2023 Meeting
Agenda item #6: Request for zoning change to WU code
PHOENIX HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION OPPOSES ZONING CHANGE
Dear Member of the Central City Village Planning Committee:
Grand Avenue and its environs have always been part of the idea that created Phoenix.
The most cohesive part of its’ history is the portion from Five Points (Van Buren/7th
Avenue/and Grand) to Six Points (McDowell/19th Avenue/and Grand).
The Story Historic District is adjacent to Fairview Place Historic District, and Encanto-
Palmcroft Historic District, both of which are adjacent to the Del Norte Place Historic
District. Grand Avenue is also adjacent to Roosevelt, Oakland and Woodland Historic
Districts. Anything that disturbs the historic setting of Grand Avenue has repercussions,
like earthquake aftershocks, to affect the adjacent historic districts. All of these
elements are part of the undivided whole of Phoenix history.
The Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition (PHNC) is composed of people who live
throughout the historic neighborhoods within the city. We come together because we
value the history of Phoenix, and we seek to share our love of our city’s historic
neighborhoods to preserve not only the buildings, but also help stabilize and build
strong communities.
2
The MercyHill Church was designed in 1946 by Lescher & Mahoney as part of Phoenix’s
post World War ll history. The façade is remarkably similar to the pre-war Clubhouse at
Encanto Park designed by the same firm.
The PHNC is concerned about the damaging impact of this proposed project on the
existing neighborhoods and the larger Grand Avenue community. While the MercyHill
Church may not be technically historical, it is certainly historically significant due to the
original church design by Lescher & Mahoney.
The PHNC supports the church’s efforts to recover financially and continue its mission
by selling their property; however, the coalition cannot support a plan that doesn’t
incorporate the architecturally significant sanctuary, colonnade and bell tower within
the larger 2.5 acre site plan. The Grand Avenue community has requested partial
preservation of specific character-defining structures; affordable housing units; artist
work spaces; and a step down to the interior residential neighborhood. The current plan
does not include any of these provisions.
Consequently, the Phoenix Historic Neighborhood Coalition does not support this
rezoning and is opposed to moving forward until these items are addressed with
adequate stipulations.
Thank you for your time and attention to this information.
Jack Marks
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
1638 Palmcroft Way SW
602-920-4751
February 10, 2023
Central City Village Planning Committee Members
C/O Sarah Stockham
City of Phoenix Planning Department
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE
Z-61-22-7; SE Corner of 9th Avenue & Fillmore
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee,
On behalf of Preserve Phoenix the advocacy voice for historic preservation in Phoenix, I am writing to
request that stipulations be created to preserve a historic building, colonnade and bell tower for Zoning
Application Z-61-22-7, a 3.24 acre proposed development site on the southeast corner of 9th Avenue
and Fillmore. The applicant has not provided an adequate community benefit in exchange for
entitlements and their current plan is not reflective of the neighborhood or of the City’s goals for quality
development that imparts a positive impact to the community it’s built in. Preserve Phoenix does not
support a plan that doesn’t include stipulations to preserve the historic structures and asks the
members of the Central City Village Planning Committee to vote “No” and not recommend this
application in its current iteration to the Planning Commission.
Our organization has been continuously engaged with the community impacted by the proposed
development at 9th Avenue and Fillmore over the past year. Since April of 2022 Preserve Phoenix has
met routinely with representatives of Mercy Hill Church along with Grand Avenue Members Association,
Grand Avenue Arts and Preservation, their members and members of the community. The potential
demolition of a longstanding historic building and church within a small neighborhood off historic Grand
Avenue generated great concerns for the members of the community and the public. Preserve Phoenix
has convened these organizations and members to coordinate community engagement to determine a
consensus to present a unified voice to the City and to the developer.
Please see attached Neighborhood petition with 47 signatures of residents and small business owners
that live in or are directly adjacent to the Triangle Neighborhood, along with seven letters we’ve received
that have been sent to Councilwoman Ansari’s District 7 Office and to the City of Phoenix Planning
Department. The Neighborhood petition asks neighbors to support 6 requests for the proposed zoning
allowance, including the primary request by Preserve Phoenix, GAMA and GAAP to preserve and
incorporate the Sanctuary, colonnade and bell tower into the development plan. I am disappointed to
relay that none of these requests have been met in the current plan. At this time no alternative plans or
even preliminary studies have been produced that substantiate the applicant’s position that their
proposed plan is the only workable plan. The Sanctuary building, colonnade and bell tower are situated
Preserve Phoenix • 734 W. Polk St., Phoenix, AZ 85007
www.PreservePHX.org
in an ideal location to be incorporated into the larger 3.24 acre site and its preservation creates other
desired design and community benefits like creating a step down into the interior of the neighborhood
and allocating open space for the public’s benefit at the corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore. This is what
the community has formally requested from the developer and the developer has denied the primary
request as well as the other 5 requests included in the petition. We are calling on members of the
Central City Village Planning Committee to question how this application provides an acceptable benefit
to the community and are those benefits addressed through stipulations to zoning?
The applicant and the developer were given the opportunity to improve the project through a
continuance but have not changed their plan in a meaningful way or accommodated public comments
and concerns. They have not provided sufficient or concrete evidence to support their reasoning. The
developer has stated that the community’s request of partial preservation would create a “less optimal”
design and are concerned that the property would be “less marketable”. We disagree with this
reasoning, find it deficient and maintain that incorporating the historic parts of the property into a
development plan will optimize the development by making it unique, desirable and more marketable.
There is great benefit to the community and to the City in preserving character defining historic
buildings. The Phoenix specific benefits including the economic benefits of preservation have been
measured and reported on in the Phoenix City Council’s adopted 2021 plan “Preservation Phoenix Style”.
If you are unfamiliar with the report I encourage you to review it and learn about an important measured
economic driver in our City that informs zoning cases of this nature. To put it succinctly, a diverse
building stock makes our City and neighborhoods better performing and more resilient.
Preserve Phoenix is unequivocally supportive of building housing and commonly advocates that older
critical affordable housing units be maintained as one part of our City’s efforts to address the current
housing crisis. We are proponents that developers can preserve important and “cool” buildings and build
new within the same plan and that it makes the plan better. The community impacted by the proposed
development in the Triangle Neighborhood is greatly supportive of seeing housing built at the Mercy Hill
Church site. They have even requested affordable housing and are concerned about the loss of the
existing affordable units at the church. The community has requested partial preservation of specific
character-defining structures; affordable housing units; artist work spaces; and a step down to the
interior residential neighborhood. The current plan does not include any of these requests and should
not move forward until these items are addressed with adequate stipulations.
Preserve Phoenix along with GAMA and GAAP are prepared to support a plan for housing that reflects
the unique place in which it is to be built. Please support this unified request to preserve the Sanctuary,
colonnade and bell tower in Zoning Application Z-61-22-7 by creating adequate stipulations that will
foster a better plan for the small and historic Triangle Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ashley Harder
Interim Executive Director, Preserve Phoenix
Preserve Phoenix • 734 W. Polk St., Phoenix, AZ 85007
www.PreservePHX.org
From:
Neal Haddad
To:
PDD Long Range Planning
Cc:
Sarah Stockham
Subject:
CCVPC agenda item #6, Z-61-22-7, 9th Ave. & Fillmore
Date:
Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:44:06 PM
Central City VPC members--
Please vote against the subject application as presented. The current plan that you
are reviewing does not consider the unique character of the area.
Citizens have drafted thoughtful recommendations that mesh with the area's unique
characteristics, and members of Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation have been sharing
ideas with the applicants to provide a workable solution.
Without viewing and considering the site in the context of the past three decades,
however, it is impossible to fully appreciate what visionaries and neighborhood
stalwarts have been working toward.
The community seeks many similar things that the developer wants; yet the current
plan is too thin in its considerations.
Consider:
Grand Avenue residents and merchants want more housing; they also seek
affordable housing
Grand Avenue residents and merchants want the church to be able to sell its
property and be made whole
Grand Avenue residents and merchants will support a plan that incorporates the
architecturally significant components of the church, including: the Sanctuary,
the colonnade and bell tower
The recommendations made by the residents and merchants group includes:
partial preservation of specific character-defining structures
affordable housing units
artist work spaces, and
a 'step-down' to the interior residential neighborhood
None of the above recommendations have been made in the current plan.
Grand Avenue is a gem that has been polished by the residents and members of
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation and others for the past three decades. It is an area
unique to our city. Will you recognize the value of this area, of this community and
these people who have nurtured this into a unique and special site?
Please, vote no on this project and ask the parties to keep working on it. Then, ask
the applicant to work directly with those who have been specifically responsible for
bringing along this unique and special community within our city.
Thanks for reading.
--
Neal Haddad
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
neal.haddad@gmail.com
602.684.3889
I’d like to introduce myself,
My name is Benjamin Hall, and my wife and I have lived in this neighborhood for 13 years.
We not only have our home here but we have developed two AIA Honor Award winning multifamily properties in
the neighborhood in which we remain the owners and landlords of.
Now as community members in our newly reenergized neighborhood association meetings, the community has
just begun to scratch the surface of what the real impact of this new WU zoning would have on the fabric of the
neighborhood.
Specifically, the scale of this project. We essentially will be doubling the population of residents in this
neighborhood on a single parcel that almost occupies an entire city block.
Most of the added impact as outlined below will end up being a conversation with the city and the community in
future discussions. We hope that the voice of this development ownership will be harmony with the existing
Triangle Neighborhood community to strengthen our position to further beautify and protect this fragile corner of
the city.
The neighborhood at this stage has identified a few of the added impacts by this newly introduced WU zoning.
Examples being:
1. A need for neighborhood public trash cans on street corners, which means added trash service
throughout the community.
2. The amplification of existing street parking issues with the possible need for nighttime parking permits.
3. Added police presence / patrolling.
4. New vehicular design strategies like roundabouts and speed bumps to reduce the already high-speed cut
throughs from morning and evening commuters.
5. Additional street lighting for safer pedestrian night walking.
6. Added street crossings for safer pedestrian crossing out of the neighborhood. As we are surrounded on all
three sides by high traffic roads.
These are just a few examples:
We have been hopeful that a neighborly partnership would be formed between this developer and the current
community. This developer would be the largest and loudest single member of the community organization in the
future. We were optimistic it would be through this hearing process that that foundation would be built upon.
Because in the future the added impacts of this project only expedite the effects of what we honestly know is
coming, and that is a denser and larger rental community that will outnumber the home owners in this small
neighborhood.
Know to the specifics of this parcel itself. The community understands (and frankly has mixed feelings about) what
this new zoning would provide. But it’s been identified that it comes with new opportunities, that are not currently
allowed with current zoning. Like added height, provision for affordable housing (which is different than
“attainable housing”), closer setbacks to the street for the purpose of street activation with commercial and retails
shops on the ground floor. The promotion of true mixed use and live work opportunities. All great attributes that
the WU code zoning provides. All that would or could have verifiable positive outcome for the community and
surrounding public. But instead, the proposed plan from the developer appears to be cherry picking aspects of the
new zoning code like: (high unit density, increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks) while turning its back to the
other parts mentioned prior. From what is currently understood the development is a 100% insular project with no
streetside public activated retail spaces. No opportunity for the community to patron the amenities spaces within.
Frankly it’s not a publicly accessible project at all, which seems counter to the spirit of the WU code itself. In fact, I
think this project might be a gated community in disguised.
Now understanding, that the ripple effect of a project of this scale in such a small neighborhood. Its mere presence
will be felt through surrounding neighborhoods as well like FQ Story, and Grand Ave. Ironically, this project has
galvanized members of all these neighborhoods under one objective. (Which frankly I think is low hanging fruit)
1. The preservation of the bell tower (which we had to bring to the developer’s attention is protected in the
existing setback that already govern.)
2. The preservation of the original double wythe constructed brick colonnade (again we have explained that the
cost savings of preserving the authentic construction and its structurally sound footings would yield them a
financial saving vs there proposal to reconstructing, in the exact same location a faux version of this historic
architecture feature.)
3. The preservation and reinvented use of the existing 7,000 sf sanctuary space located on the NW corner of the
parcel. Programed by developer (how they see fit) to be the community component / amenity that would be
accessible to the community and the greater City of Phoenix as outlined in the WU code objective.
When volunteering neighborhood design professional’s asked point blank to the developer. If a contiguous site
plan configuration, which preserves these three objectives while maintain the developers proforma objective
would be (in the form of the unit count, parking count, and maintaining their proposed height.) considered. The
developer’s direct response was:
“We have no intentions of proposing any new site plan configuration other than the one already presented.”
Shane- the developer
This unfortunately feels like we may not be working with a future community member that has the same long-
term interest as the community itself. Which is very disheartening and concerning.
From:
Marilyn Riggs
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
City Council Meeting
Date:
Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:45:25 PM
I would to express my opinion on
agenda item number 14. I am opposed to the total demolition of
the Cherry Hill Church.
Marilyn Riggs
2010 N 15th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Sent from my iPhone
February 23, 2023
Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari, District 7
City of Phoenix
Phoenix City Hall
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: MercyHill Development Z-61-22-7
Dear Councilwoman Ansari,
The Historic Grand Avenue preservation community appreciates the dialogue our
District 7 Office has facilitated between residents, business owners, non-profits and
the MercyHill Church and Trumont Group.
Community and preservation representatives have never asked MercyHill, nor the
developer, to preserve anything beyond the character defining brick bell tower,
colonnades and the sanctuary. For eighty years these features have defined this valley
landmark and are not dilapidated nor irreparable.
While leading preservation professionals may differ on the historic status of these
church features, we believe they are certainly historically significant due to the original
church design by Lescher and Mahoney, the leading architects in mid-twentieth
century Phoenix. The bell tower, colonnades and sanctuary could become a selling
point for the redevelopment, and tie this development into the earlier history of
Phoenix. We ask for a mere 7,000 sq. ft. out of 106,000 sq. ft. be adaptively reused to
honor the illustrious history of the church.
Those of us who have done the hard work over the last several decades deserve for
our voice to be given equal footing with the buyer and seller, because of the immediate
impact on nearby neighbors and the certain future impact on the preservation of the
entire district. Trumont Group has a minimal track record; we would hate to see a
significant building needlessly demolished due to lack of experience, the inability to
work outside the box, and a project that ultimately may not happen in its stated form.
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
1301 Grand Avenue #8
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.391.4016
Therefore we are requesting these timely next steps:
1) Access be given to a historically-qualified structural engineer provided by
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation to examine the church sanctuary’s condition;
2) The original brick bell tower and original brick colonnades be stipulated for
preservation in their current locations;
3) If adaptive reuse of the sanctuary is found to be feasible by the structural
engineer, that it be retained on the site until building permits are applied for by
Trumont Group and approved by the City of Phoenix.
Dozens of new owners and businesses have independently renovated and restored
vintage and historic structures in this unique downtown corridor for over 30 years,
creating a notable collection of vintage commercial building stock. Decades of
restoration have been accompanied by years of crime fighting through eradication of
drug houses, prostitution, petty crime, gun violence and blight.
Deterrence of a long list of other social ills including homelessness, addiction, gangs,
and disenfranchisement of area youth, was partially achieved through community
engagement programs, including a series of federally funded “Weed and Seed” grants.
A decade ago the EPA’s Greening America’s Capitals grant assisted with collective
visioning and additional neighborhood beautification projects.
The City of Phoenix has received an extraordinary gift through the efforts of many,
with the preservation of an area that is an authentic representation of early and
mid-20th century architecture along historic Route 60. Without proper foresight,
adequate protections, and dedicated stewards, our one-of-a-kind district will come to
resemble many other over-built Phoenix neighborhoods.
Thank you in advance for your timely attention to the above next steps.
Sincerely (signed electronically),
Beatrice Moore; Director Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
Bob Graham; President Grand Avenue Members Assoc.
Ashley Harder; Interim Executive Director Preserve Phoenix
G.G. George; President Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
Jim McPherson; President Arizona Preservation Foundation
Neal Haddad, Pres/B. Paul Barnes, VP; Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
January 27, 2023
Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix
RE: Z-61-22-7, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Dear Phoenix Planning Commissioners,
Greetings, I am writing again with a stance of a “NO”, or a continuance for Zoning Case
Z-61-22-7, known as the Mercy Hill Church Development.
The reason for my letter is 3-fold. One is to support the community that I have been part
of since 2013, two is to speak to high priority adjustments the project should consider, and last
to address the letter sent to this committee by Mr. Paul Johnson.
I know that often you do not receive many case letters, but it does not mean they do not
care. Not everyone has the time or ability to craft a response, even when it is so important.
Many have a combination of work, families, and businesses to run. Statement requests often
come on short notice, so I hope you highly consider the weight of the people who have taken
the time to write letters, the place they hold in the community, and how many people their voices
represent. I am the founder of Snood City: an art collective and the business owner. I alone
directly represent the voices of 15 people who work with me and are based on Grand Ave, with
500+ in my local network. It is the developers sole job, which has full dedication of time, money,
and resources to make sure their projects go through as they want. This is an advantage for
them to the fact that people are busy working to get by and oftentimes don’t even know when a
decision like this is on the docket.
Many agreeable compromises have been set forth by community members. Highly
notable is the rework of the site plan by architect Bob Graham (President of the Grand Ave
Members Assoc.) to preserve the sanctuary, bell tower and colonnades which does not take
away (it in fact adds) rentable sq. footage space. Also important to consider is the footprint of
the structure. It should be dynamic and integrate into the surrounding neighborhood better. The
building should not simply be a large box with towering walls that dwarfs existing homes. There
is a unique opportunity here for the type of rentable space offered, and the project should
seriously consider small commercial spaces at the ground level. There is a high demand for
downtown studio spaces, especially for artists, which would further support the draw of Grand
Avenue. Incorporating spaces of this nature will be a big win for the neighborhood. Overall, this
development needs a serious creative design rework. Take a trip to Grand Ave and look at the
personality. We do not want something that looks like every other development in every other
city, including this one. There is no originality with what has been presented by the developers
and we demand better.
Finally to address the letter by Mr. Paul Johnson:
The stance of Mr. Johnson’s letter to this board, submitted on Jan 5, 2023 is
aggravating. To call a studio apartment rented at $1,200 “affordable” is laughable. It is
common sentiment that the local housing market is almost criminal. The standard is that
when applying to a rental you must have 3x rent for income. That means, someone has
to be making $50k per year to cover their expenses just to live in a studio apartment.
How is that affordable housing? Additionally, his comment with intention to “[...extend the
benefits that have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to
West of 7th Ave“] What are those benefits? Terrible parking and street maneuverability?
Bland architecture? Unused 400 sq ft. gym amenities? The notion that the Grand Ave
community wants anything like what has happened on Roosevelt Row is absurd. It puts
on full display the gap in understanding of the local ideology and what is desired. The
reason Grand Ave exists is despite these kinds of developers. Business owners support
high density projects that will bring more people to the area, but not at the cost of the
soul of the community. That is why Grand Ave is even attractive in the first place. It is
interesting and unique. When I look at Roosevelt Row, I don’t see “high quality” projects,
I see cookie cutter, so-called luxury highrises. Grand Ave has its own sense of place,
and we want to keep it that way.
I challenge this Board and the Mercy Hill developers to really question what their driving factor is
for this project. Meaningful communication and readjustment of what a “true urban project”
means for the Grand Avenue community is essential, and has not yet been achieved.
Thank you for your time,
Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com