Attachment D - Addendum A - Z-74-24-6.pdf

ADDENDUM A 
Staff Report: Z-74-24-6 
October 10, 2024 
Camelback East Village Planning 
Committee Meeting Date: 
August 6, 2024 
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 
October 10, 2024 
Request From: 
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (1.82
acres)
Request To: 
R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) (1.82
acres)
Proposal: 
Multifamily residential 
Location: 
Northeast corner of 21st Street and 
Turney Avenue 
Owner:  
4401 Turney Villas, LLC 
Applicant/Representative: 
Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, 
PLC 
Staff Recommendation: 
Approval, subject to stipulations 
The purpose of this addendum is to revise the site plan and elevations on file to reflect 
updated documents submitted by the applicant.  
The request is to rezone 1.82 acres located on the northeast corner of 21st Street and 
Turney Avenue from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-5 (Multifamily Residence 
District) for multifamily residential.   
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on August 6, 2024, and a 
motion for approval failed with a 7-9 vote. Therefore, no recommendation was forwarded to 
the Planning Commission.  
On October 3, 2024 the applicant submitted a revised site plan and elevations. The revised 
site plan depicts a reduction in the number of units from 75 to 64. The revised elevations 
depict a reduction in building height along the Turney Avenue and 21st Street frontages 
from four stories (48 feet) to three stories (approximately 38 feet). The applicant reduced 
the number of units and the building height in response to community concerns regarding 
compatibility with the surrounding area. Staff recommends additional stipulations to ensure 
compliance with the reduced number of units and building height (see new Stipulation Nos.1 
and 2). 
Additional correspondence received after the publication of the staff report is also attached 
to this addendum. 
Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below: 
ATTACHMENT D

Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-74-24-6 
October 10, 2024 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
Stipulations 
 
  
1. 
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE 64. 
 
 
2. 
THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM 3 STORIES 
AND 39 FEET WITHIN 37 FEET OF THE TURNEY AVENUE PROPERTY LINE 
AND WITHIN 45 FEET OF THE 21ST STREET PROPERTY LINE. 
 
 
3.1. 
The landscape setback along 21st Street shall be planted with minimum 2-inch 
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or 
in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department. 
 
 
4.2.  
A minimum 40-foot building setback shall be provided along the north property 
lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.  
 
 
5.3. 
A minimum 5-foot sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 21st Street, 
adjacent to the development. 
 
 
6.4. 
A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk, separated by a minimum 7-foot-wide 
landscape area, shall be constructed on the north side of Turney Avenue. The 
landscape area shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large 
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent 
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
 
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and 
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a 
pedestrian environment. 
 
 
7.5. 
All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way on 21st Street shall be 
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with 
the affected utility companies for their review and permitting. 
 
 
 
8.6. 
Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any 
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and 
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA 
guidelines. 
 
 
9.7. 
All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with 
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, 
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and 
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA 
accessibility standards. 
 
 
10.8. 
Bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit, up to 
a maximum of 50 spaces, and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of 
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs

Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-74-24-6 
October 10, 2024 
Page 3 of 4 
 
in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan. 
 
 
11.9. 
A minimum of three of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard 
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the 
Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
12.10. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station 
shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station; a 
tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels 
to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the Planning 
and Development Department. 
 
 
 
13.11. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle 
(EV) Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department. 
 
 
14.12. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified 
by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
15.13. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient 
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize 
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape 
irrigation. 
 
 
16.14. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf 
areas to reduce water waste.  
 
 
17.15. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by 
the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by 
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a 
combination thereof. 
 
 
18.16. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater 
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and 
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not 
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., 
per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development 
Details for Alternative Stormwater Management. 
 
 
19.17. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and 
operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the 
property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the 
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by 
the City Attorney. 
 
 
20.18. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the 
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot 
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the 
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-74-24-6
October 10, 2024
Page 4 of 4
21.19.
Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County 
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning 
application file for record.
Exhibits
Site Plan date stamped October 3, 2024 
Elevations date stamped October 3, 2024 (2 pages) 
Correspondence (36 pages)

/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


522)


/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


*(1(5$/127(6(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
127)25
&216758&7,21
'(/7$5(9,6,216
3/27'$7(
,668(1$0(
352-(&7
,668('$7(
($67%87+(586'5,9(
68,7(
6&2776'$/($5,=21$
3
:::.(1=<$5&+,7(&76&20
$0
$
352*5(666(7
(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
7851(<9,//$6
$3$570(176
1257+67675((7
3+2(1,;$5,=21$
7851(<9,//$6//&


 


(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21B1257+
 


(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21B6287+









'(6&5,37,21
'$7(

/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


522)


/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


/(9(/


*(1(5$/127(6(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
127)25
&216758&7,21
'(/7$5(9,6,216
3/27'$7(
,668(1$0(
352-(&7
,668('$7(
($67%87+(586'5,9(
68,7(
6&2776'$/($5,=21$
3
:::.(1=<$5&+,7(&76&20
$0
$
352*5(666(7
(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
7851(<9,//$6
$3$570(176
1257+67675((7
3+2(1,;$5,=21$
7851(<9,//$6//&


 


(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21B($67
 


(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21B:(67









'(6&5,37,21
'$7(


	


1
Subject:
FW: Phoenix, "R-3A" zoning refers to **Multifamily Residence Distri In Phoenix,
From:jpaletta1<jpaletta1@cox.net>
Sent:Wednesday,October9,20242:03PM
To:TeleiaGalaviz<teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov>;JohnRoanhorse<john.roanhorse@phoenix.gov>
Cc:MelissaRhodes<melissa.rhodes.az@gmail.com>;KathyDeLorey<ksews60@gmail.com>;RussellBirkland
<rgenebirkland@gmail.com>;Betsy&RobertGreenberg<berto56@cox.net>
Subject:Phoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistriInPhoenix,
Telesia:PLEASEPLACETHISINTHEFILEGOTTHEINDIVIDUALPLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEMBERS.InPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistriInPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistrict,Urban**.Thiszoning
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix. 
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this 
email. 
  Report Suspicious 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Telesia:
PLEASEPLACETHISINTHEFILEGOTTHEINDIVIDUALPLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEMBERS.
InPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistriInPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**Multifamily
ResidenceDistrict,Urban**.ThiszoningdistrictisintendedtoallowformediumͲdensityresidentialdevelopment,such
asapartments,townhomes,orothertypesofmultifamilyhousing.
HerearesomekeycharacteristicsofRͲ3AzoninginPhoenix:
Ͳ**Density**:TypicallyallowsformoredenseresidentialdevelopmentcomparedtostandardsingleͲfamilyzones,
thoughnotasdenseashighermultifamilyzones(likeRͲ5).
Ͳ**HeightRestrictions**:StructurescanbetallercomparedtosingleͲfamilyzones,oftenwithalimitaround40feet,but
thiscanvarydependingonspecificregulationsandoverlays.
Ͳ**Uses**:Primarilyresidential,thoughsometimescomplementaryusessuchascommunitycenters,schools,orsmall
retailestablishmentsmaybepermittedundercertainconditions.
Ͳ**LotSize**:TheminimumlotsizeisgenerallysmallerthaninsingleͲfamilyzones,allowingformorecompactde

1
Subject:
FW: UNCERTAINTY OF HIGHER R5 ZONING IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 
NEIGHBORHOOD
From: jpaletta1 <jpaletta1@cox.net>  
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:15 PM 
To: Teleia Galaviz <teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Melissa Rhodes <melissa.rhodes.az@gmail.com>; Kathy DeLorey <ksews60@gmail.com>; Kathryn 
northcentralnews.net <kathryn@northcentralnews.net>; Russell Birkland <rgenebirkland@gmail.com>; 
ryanworldtravel8@gmail.com; jpaletta1: cox.net <jpaletta1@cox.net> 
Subject: UNCERTAINTY OF HIGHER R5 ZONING IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD 
Give definition of uncertainty that develops in a neighborhood when high density rezoning is int oducted Uncertainty in a neighbor hood following hig h-density rezoning refers to the anxiety, unpredicta bility, and concer ns a mong residents, property
Give definition of uncertainty that develops in a neighborhood when high density rezoning is intoducted 
Uncertainty in a neighborhood following high-density rezoning refers to the anxiety, unpredictability, 
and concerns among residents, property owners, and stakeholders about the future of the area. This 
uncertainty often stems from various factors, such as: 
1. **Changes in Property Values:** Residents may be unsure whether property values will rise or fall
due to the new zoning rules, affecting their investments.
2. **Impact on Community Character:** People may worry about how the introduction of higher-
density buildings (e.g., apartments, condos) will alter the neighborhood's aesthetic, social, and cultural
atmosphere.
3. **Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns:** Higher density often brings more people, which can strain
existing roads, public services, schools, and utilities, causing apprehension about congestion or overuse
of infrastructure.
4. **Housing Market Shifts:** There may be concern over whether the rezoning will lead to a more
affordable or less affordable housing market, influencing who can afford to live in the area.
5. **Unpredictable Development Timeline:** Residents may be unsure when and how quickly new
developments will take place, disrupting the current way of life or bringing about sudden changes.
This collective uncertainty can create tension, resistance, or even conflict within the community as 
different stakeholders react to the potential impacts of the rezoning. 
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

1
Subject:
FW: Letter of opposition to rezoning case z-74-24”0
From: jpaletta1 <jpaletta1@cox.net>  
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:40 PM 
To: Teleia Galaviz <teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Kathy DeLorey <ksews60@gmail.com>; Kathryn northcentralnews.net <kathryn@northcentralnews.net>; Melissa 
Rhodes <melissa.rhodes.az@gmail.com>; Russell Birkland <rgenebirkland@gmail.com>; Betsy & Robert Greenberg 
<berto56@cox.net>; ryanworldtravel8@gmail.com; jpaletta1: cox.net <jpaletta1@cox.net> 
Subject: Letter of opposition to rezoning case z-74-24”0 
TELEIA: PLEASE PLACE THIS IN THE FILE GOR THE PLA NNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Rezoning a property from a medium-density multifamily residential district to R5 (high-density residential district) can bring several cha nges to a neighbor hood. Here 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
TELEIA: 
PLEASE PLACE THIS IN THE FILE GOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS 
Rezoning a property from a medium-density multifamily residential district to R5 (high-density residential district) can 
bring several changes to a neighborhood. Here are the key potential impacts on the certainty and character of the area: 
### 1. **Increased Density and Population** 
- **Impact**: R5 zoning allows for taller and larger buildings, which can accommodate more units and increase the
population density of the area. 
- **Neighborhood Character**: The influx of more residents could lead to a busier, more urban feel in what might
have been a quieter or less densely populated neighborhood. 
### 2. **Change in Building Size and Aesthetics** 
- **Impact**: R5 zoning typically permits larger buildings, which could lead to taller apartment complexes or multi-
story residential buildings. 
- **Neighborhood Character**: This may disrupt the architectural harmony of the neighborhood, especially if
surrounding properties are primarily smaller, single-family homes or lower-rise buildings. 
### 3. **Traffic and Parking** 
- **Impact**: Higher-density residential areas often bring more vehicles, which could increase traffic congestion and
the demand for parking. 
- **Neighborhood Character**: Residents may experience increased noise, parking shortages, and overall street
congestion, which could reduce the quality of life for long-time residents. 
### 4. **Public Services and Infrastructure** 
- **Impact**: Increased population density will put more pressure on public services, such as schools, public
transportation, water, and sewer systems. The neighborhood might see upgrades to these services, but there may also 
be growing pains during the transition. 
- **Neighborhood Character**: The strain on services could affect the experience of current residents, but
improvements could attract more amenities and infrastructure upgrades. 
### 5. **Property Values** 
- **Impact**: Rezoning to a high-density residential district can increase property values due to the potential for
redevelopment, but it can also make properties more expensive, which might push out long-term residents. 
- **Neighborhood Character**: This could lead to gentrification, changing the socio-economic makeup of the area and
potentially altering the neighborhood’s culture and identity.

2
### 6. **Commercial Development** 
   - **Impact**: High-density zones sometimes encourage nearby commercial developments to support the growing 
population, leading to the opening of new businesses like shops, restaurants, and services. 
   - **Neighborhood Character**: This could make the area more vibrant and convenient, but it might also shift the 
neighborhood from a residential to a more mixed-use environment. 
 
### 7. **Social and Community Impact** 
   - **Impact**: Higher-density developments can change the social fabric of the neighborhood, with less familiarity 
among neighbors due to an increase in transient or short-term residents. 
   - **Neighborhood Character**: Long-standing community bonds could be weakened as a result of more turnover and 
less cohesion. 
 
### 8. **Environmental Impact** 
   - **Impact**: More development may reduce green spaces, while also potentially increasing waste, noise pollution, 
and reducing air quality. 
   - **Neighborhood Character**: A reduction in open space and greenery could detract from the neighborhood’s charm 
and sense of tranquility. 
 
Rezoning a property to R5 may bring growth and economic benefits, but it will also inevitably change the landscape and 
lifestyle of the neighborhood. Understanding these factors can help residents and policymakers weigh the potential 
benefits and drawbacks. 
 
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓
ϱ͓͑
ϱ͕ ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗ Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑
ϙ
*RRGDIWHUQRRQ

,UHVLGHLQ3HWHU¶V9LHZVLWXDWHGGLUHFWO\ZHVWRIWK6WUHHW,DPZULWLQJWRH[SUHVVP\FRQFHUQV
ZLWKLWHP=WKH7XUQH\9LOODVSURMHFW:KLOH,DPQRWDJDLQVWUHGHYHORSPHQW,
VWURQJO\RSSRVHVXEVWDQWLDOLQFUHDVHVLQGHQVLW\DQGKHLJKWZLWKLQHVWDEOLVKHGQHLJKERUKRRGV
7KHIROORZLQJSRLQWVDLPWRLOOXVWUDWHZK\WKHSURSRVHGGHQVLW\DQGVFDOHRIWKLVSURMHFWXQVXLWDEOH
IRUWKLVORFDWLRQDQGVHWVDGHWULPHQWDOSUHFHGHQFHIRUWKHVWDELOLW\RIQHLJKERUKRRGVWKURXJKRXW
WKHDUHD

,Q)LOO3URMHFWV
7KHGHYHORSHUKDVUHIHUUHGWRWKLVSURMHFWDVLQILOOGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUSHUWKH&LW\¶VRZQ,QILOO
GHYHORSPHQWFULWHULDJHQHUDOSODQDQGSROLFLHVWKLVSURMHFWLV127DQLQILOOGHYHORSPHQW

 ,WLV127ORFDWHGZLWKLQDQLQILOOGLVWULFWRUERXQGDU\7KHJUHHQVKDGLQJLQWKHIROORZLQJ
LPDJH LQGLFDWHV WKH LQILOO ERXQGDULHV GHILQHG E\ 5HVROXWLRQ 5 ZLWK WKH UHG GRW
PDUNLQJWKHJHQHUDOSURMHFWORFDWLRQ*HQHUDO3ODQ$PHQGPHQW,QILOO3ROLF\5HVROXWLRQ
5

 7KLVSURMHFW,6ZLWKLQWKH6LQJOH)DPLO\$WWDFKHG'HYHORSPHQW2SWLRQ2UGLQDQFH*
DQG([SDQVLRQ%RXQGDULHVIRUWKH6LQJOH)DPLO\6)$'HYHORSPHQW2SWLRQ2UGLQDQFH
* 7KH IROORZLQJ LPDJH LOOXVWUDWHV WKH ERXQGDU\ RI WKH VLQJOH IDPLO\ DWWDFKHG
GHYHORSPHQWJUH\GDVKHGOLQHWKHDSSUR[LPDWHSURMHFWORFDWLRQUHGGRWDQGWKHLQILOO
GHYHORSPHQWGLVWULFWSHUWKHJHQHUDOSODQVROLGEODFNOLQH


 7KLVSDUFHOLVQHLWKHUYDFDQWEOLJKWHGQRUXQGHUXWLOL]HGDVGHILQHGLQ3DUW,,,RIWKHFRUH
YDOXHV :KLOH WKH ODQGRZQHU PD\ VHHN WR LQFUHDVH LQFRPH WKLV VKRXOG QRW LPSRVH D
EXUGHQRQWKHQHLJKERUKRRRG

*HQHUDO3ODQ3DUW,,,&RUH9DOXHV,QILOO/DQG8VHDQG'HVLJQ3ULQFLSOHV
•
³3URPRWHDQGHQFRXUDJHFRPSDWLEOHLQILOOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKDPL[RIKRXVLQJW\SHV´

*HQHUDO3ODQ3DUW,,,7RROV3ROLFLHVDQG$FWLRQV
•
³DQLQILOOGHYHORSPHQWPXVWEHORFDWHGZLWKWKHLQILOOGHYHORSPHQWGLVWULFWPDS´
•
³,PSOHPHQWWKHSURSRVHGLQILOOGHYHORSPHQWGLVWULFWVKRZQRQWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ/DQG8VH
0DS´

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓
ϱ͓͑
ϱ͕ ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗ Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑
ϙ

3URMHFWVZLWKLQPLOHUDGLXVRIWKLVORFDWLRQWKDWKDYHEHHQFRQVWUXFWHGRUDSSURYHGLQ
WKHODVWGHFDGH
6LQFHWKHUHKDYHEHHQQHZPXOWLIDPLO\SURMHFWVDSSURYHGDQGRUFRQVWUXFWHGZLWKLQD
PLOHUDGLXVRIWKLVGHYHORSPHQW&ROOHFWLYHO\WKHVHSURMHFWFRQWULEXWHDWRWDORIDSDUWPHQWV
WRWKHDUHD7KHWDEOHEHORZSURYLGHVDVXPPDU\RIWKHVHSURMHFWDORQJZLWKWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJ
QXPEHURIXQLWV

3URMHFW
1XPEHU
RI8QLWV
1RWHV

=
7KLV
3URMHFW

/RFDWHG
LQ
D
QHLJKERUKRRG
RQORFDOVWUHHWV
=

2Q D &ROOHFWRU
URDG
=

2Q
D
3ULQFLSDO
$UWHULDOURDG
=

=

=

=

=

/RFDWHG
LQ
D
QHLJKERUKRRG RQ
D
ORFDO
VWUHHW
VLPLODU
WR
WKLV
SURMHFW
=


$OOWKHKLJKGHQVLW\SURMHFWVDUHORFDWHGRQFROOHFWRURUSULQFLSDODUWHULDOURDGVZKLFKDUHPRUH
FDSDEOHRIDFFRPPRGDWLQJKLJKHUWUDIILFYROXPHV

,QDQHLJKERUKRRGFRPSDUDEOHWRWKLVSURMHFWWKHUHDUHWZRORZWRPHGLXPGHQVLW\GHYHORSPHQWV
7KHVHSURMHFWVDOLJQLQKHLJKWDQGGHQVLW\ZLWKDGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGFHQWUDOO\RQDORFDOVWUHHW
UHSUHVHQWLQJDVXLWDEOHUHGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQDQHVWDEOLVKHGFRPPXQLW\

6LQFH12VLQJOHIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWVKDYHEHHQSURSRVHGRUFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKH
VDPHPLOHYLFLQLW\5HVLGHQWLDOSURMHFWVKDYHEHHQOLPLWHGWRWKHUHQRYDWLRQRUUHPRGHOLQJRI
H[LVWLQJKRPHVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKFXUUHQW]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQV,QWKHSDVWWZR\HDUVDORQJWKHUH
KDYH EHHQ VL[ VXFK UHQRYDWLRQV RQ P\ VWUHHW 0DQ\ RI WKH KLJKGHQVLW\ GHYHORSPHQWV KDYH
DFTXLUHGDQGUHPRYHGH[LVWLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHVFRQGRVRUWRZQKRXVHVIURPWKHPDUNHW

$QRWDEOHLPEDODQFHLVHPHUJLQJGXHWRWKHH[FOXVLYHIRFXVRQODUJHPXOWLIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWV
ZKLFKXQGHUPLQHVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\IRUIDPLOLHVWRRZQHLWKHUGHWDFKHGRUDWWDFKHGKRPHVLQWKH
DUHD



iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓
ϱ͓͑
ϱ͕ ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗ Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑
ϙ
7UDIILF,PSDFWV
,WLVDFRPPRQDVVHUWLRQDPRQJYDULRXVSURMHFWVWKDWWKH\ZLOOKDYHQRRUPLQLPDOHIIHFWVRQORFDO
WUDIILF+RZHYHUWKHVHDVVHVVPHQWVRIWHQRYHUORRNWKHUHSHUFXVVLRQVRQDGMDFHQWORFDOURDGVDQG
PLQRUFROOHFWRUVWKDWXOWLPDWHO\EHDUWKHEXUGHQRIWKHDGGLWLRQDOWUDIILFJHQHUDWHG
7KH IROORZLQJ LV GHULYHG IURPWUDIILF GDWD JDWKHUHG E\WKH &LW\ RI 3KRHQL[ IRU WKH WK 6WUHHW
,PSURYHPHQW3URMHFWZKLFKUHFHLYHG&LW\&RXQFLODSSURYDOLQZLWKGDWDFROOHFWLRQRFFXUULQJ
LQDQG$FFRUGLQJWRWKH&LW\RI3KRHQL[¶V3ODQQLQJDQG'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWUDIILFGDWD
VKRXOGQRWH[FHHGWZR\HDUVLQDJH+RZHYHUWKHGDWDSHUWDLQLQJWRWK6WUHHWLVQHDULQJD
GHFDGHROG6HHWKH6XPPDU\RIWK6WUHHW7UDIILF1XPEHUVEHORZ

WK6WUHHWLVDPLQRUFROOHFWRUH[SHULHQFLQJWUDIILFYROXPHVDSSURDFKLQJYHKLFOHVGXULQJ
SHDN KRXUV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH SHDN KRXU IDFWRU VHUYHV DV D PHDVXUH RI WUDIILF FRQVLVWHQF\
LQGLFDWLQJZKHWKHUWUDIILFIORZVVWHDGLO\RUH[SHULHQFHVLQWHUUXSWLRQV7KHSHDNKRXUIDFWRUIRUWK
6WUHHWLVQHDUO\VXJJHVWLQJWKDWWUDIILFOHYHOVDUHFRQVLVWHQWO\DOLJQHGZLWKWKHUHSRUWHGYHKLFOH
FRXQW 5HVLGHQWV RI 3HWHU¶V 9LHZ GHSHQG RQ WK 6WUHHW IRU VDIH DFFHVV WR DQG IURP RXU
QHLJKERUKRRGDVZHDUHFRQVWUDLQHGE\WKH65WRWKHZHVW:HFDQSHUVRQDOO\DWWHVWWRWKH
GLIILFXOWLHVHQFRXQWHUHGZKHQHQWHULQJRUH[LWLQJRXUQHLJKERUKRRGGXULQJSHDNWUDIILFWLPHV

7KH&LW\KDVLGHQWLILHGWK6WUHHWDVDFUXFLDOFRUULGRUIRUERWKELF\FOHVDQGSHGHVWULDQVUDQNLQJ
LWWKRXWRIFRUULGRUVLQWHUPVRIVLJQLILFDQFH(DFKDGGLWLRQDOYHKLFOHRQWKLVFRUULGRUKDVD
VXEVWDQWLDOLPSDFWRQWKHTXDOLW\RIOLIHDQGVDIHW\IRUDOOXVHUV

6XPPDU\RIWK6WUHHW7UDIILF1XPEHUV
/RFDWLRQ
$03HDN 303HDN 3HDN+RXU)DFWRU
WK6WUHHWDW
&DPEHOO
6%
1%
6%
1%
$0
30
WK6WUHHWDW
,QGLDQ6FKRRO5RDG
6%
1%
6%
1%
$0
30

7KHVLJQLILFDQFHRIWKHVHILJXUHVOLHVLQWKHIDFWWKDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\YHKLFOHVDUHJHQHUDWHG
EHWZHHQ,QGLDQ6FKRRO5RDGDQG&DPSEHOO$YHQXHZKLFKFDQEHSUHVXPHGWREHSULPDULO\IURP
UHVLGHQWVXWLOL]LQJWK6WUHHW

7KHIROORZLQJWDEOHLVDVXPPDU\RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWWUDIILFQXPEHUVWKDWZLOOEHVHHQRQWKHORFDO
VWUHHWV
/RFDWLRQ
$03HDN 303HDN
VW6WUHHW	7XUQH\ 


7KHWUDIILFUHSRUWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKLVGHYHORSPHQWGRHVQRWSURYLGHDGHWDLOHGGLVWULEXWLRQRI
WUDIILF KRZHYHU FRQVLGHULQJ WKH WUDIILF GHVWLQDWLRQV DORQJ WK 6WUHHW DQG WKH VXEVWDQWLDO
FRQJHVWLRQ RQ &DPSEHOO$YHQXH LW FDQ EH LQIHUUHG WKDW DW OHDVW  RI WKH WUDIILF IURP WKH
GHYHORSPHQWZLOOOLNHO\EHGLUHFWHGWRZDUGVWK6WUHHW

:KHQ WKLV ILJXUH LV MX[WDSRVHG ZLWK WKH RYHUDOO WUDIILF FRXQWV RQ WK 6WUHHW LWUHSUHVHQWV DQ
DSSUR[LPDWHLQFUHDVHLQYHKLFOHYROXPH&RQYHUVHO\ZKHQFRPSDUHGWRWKHWUDIILFJHQHUDWHG
E\WKHVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGVWKLVUHVXOWVLQDQLQFUHDVHRIRYHULQWUDIILFDWWHPSWLQJWR
PDNHOHIWRUULJKWWXUQVRQWRRUIURPWK6WUHHW6XFKLQFUHDVHGGHOD\VFRQWULEXWHWRKHLJKWHQHG
SROOXWLRQOHYHOVDQGDGHFOLQHLQWKHRYHUDOOTXDOLW\RIOLIH


iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓
ϱ͓͑
ϱ͕ ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗ Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑
ϙ
7KHIROORZLQJWDEOHSURYLGHVDVXPPDU\GHULYHGIURP&KDSWHURIWKH&LW\RI3KRHQL[6WUHHW
3ODQQLQJ'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV

/RFDO6WUHHW

0D[LPXP
9HKLFOHVSHU'D\
0D[LPXP
9HKLFOHVSHU+RXU

/RZ 'HQVLW\ 6LQJOH
)DPLO\+RPHV



+LJK 'HQVLW\ PRUH
'HYHORSHG


0LQRU
&ROOHFWRU
6WUHHW7+6WUHHW

WR


,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWWKLVGHYHORSPHQWZLOOXWLOL]HRIWKHFDSDFLW\RIWKHWZRORFDOVWUHHWV
7KHFXUUHQWWUDIILFYROXPHGDWDKDVQRWEHHQGLVFORVHGVXJJHVWLQJWKDWWKLVSHUFHQWDJHPD\EH
KLJKHU

&XUUHQWO\ WK 6WUHHW H[FHHGV WKH WKUHVKROG RI  YHKLFOHV SHU KRXU LQ ERWK GLUHFWLRQV E\
DSSUR[LPDWHO\7KHUHVLGHQWV
FRQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWUDIILFLPSDFWVDUHYDOLGSDUWLFXODUO\LQOLJKW
RISURSRVDOVIRUSURMHFWVWKDWGRQRWDOLJQZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJFKDUDFWHUVFDOHDQGGHQVLW\RIWKH
DUHDZKLFKLVDOUHDG\XQGHUVWUDLQ

&KDSWHU7UDIILF,PSDFW$QDO\VLV6HFWLRQ$GGLWLRQDOIDFWRUVWKDWPD\QHFHVVLWDWHD7UDIILF
,PSDFW$QDO\VLV7,$RUDQH[SDQGHGVFRSHLQFOXGHFRQFHUQVRUFRPSODLQWVUHJDUGLQJH[LVWLQJ
QHLJKERUKRRGWUDIILF:HKDYHH[SUHVVHGRXUFRQFHUQVDQGKDYHEHHQYRLFLQJFRPSODLQWVDERXW
WKHWUDIILFVLWXDWLRQRQWK6WUHHWIRUVHYHUDO\HDUV:HDUHVWLOODZDLWLQJWKHLQVWDOODWLRQRIDOHIW
WXUQDUURZIRUVRXWKERXQGWUDIILFRQWKDW,QGLDQ6FKRRO5RDG

7DEOH  &ULWHULD IRU 'HWHUPLQLQJ 7,$ 6WXG\ 5HTXLUHPHQWV 5H]RQLQJ DQG *HQHUDO 3ODQ
$PHQGPHQWV±&ULWHULDKDYHEHHQPHWDQGD7,$PXVWUHFHLYHDSSURYDOSULRUWRWKHVXEPLVVLRQ
RISUHOLPLQDU\SODQV*LYHQWKDWWKLVLVDUH]RQLQJLQLWLDWLYHWKLVSURMHFWGRHVQRWTXDOLI\IRUWKH
SURYLVLRQVRXWOLQHGLQ7DEOHDQGPXVWDGKHUHWRD7,$WKDWLQFOXGHVDOOUHTXLVLWHFULWHULD

6HFWLRQ=RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQVWKHUHLVDODFNRIFRPSDULVRQEHWZHHQH[LVWLQJDQGSURSRVHG
FRQGLWLRQV




iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓
ϱ͓͑
ϱ͕ ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗ Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑
ϙ
6XPPDU\
7KLVSURMHFWLVXQVXLWDEOHIRUWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQIRUVHYHUDOUHDVRQV
 ,WIDOOVRXWVLGHWKHGHVLJQDWHGPXOWLIDPLO\LQILOOERXQGDU\DQGLVLQVWHDGORFDWHGZLWKLQWKH
VLQJOHIDPLO\LQILOOERXQGDU\
 7KHUHLVDGHILFLHQF\RIVLQJOHIDPLO\KRXVLQJDQGGHYHORSPHQWVOLNHWKLVRQHFRQWULEXWH
WRWKHHOLPLQDWLRQRIVXFKKRXVLQJ
 7KH SURMHFW
V FKDUDFWHU GHQVLW\ DQG VFDOH GR QRW DOLJQ ZLWK WKRVH RI FRPSDUDEOH
QHLJKERUKRRGVZLWKLQDRQHPLOHUDGLXV
 7KHDQWLFLSDWHGLQFUHDVHLQWUDIILFZLOODGYHUVHO\DIIHFWWKHTXDOLW\RIOLIHDVSUHYLRXVO\
LQGLFDWHG
 7KHSURMHFWFRQWUDGLFWVWKH&LW\¶VHVWDEOLVKHG*HQHUDO3ODQ'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV3ROLFLHV
5HVROXWLRQVDQG2UGLQDQFHV
, XUJH \RX WR UHMHFW WKLV SURMHFW DQG LQVLVW WKDW WKH GHYHORSHUV DGKHUH WR WKH H[LVWLQJ ]RQLQJ
UHJXODWLRQVRUSURSRVHDSURMHFWWKDWDOLJQVZLWKWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGFRQVLGHUDWLRQV$GGLWLRQDOO\
LWLVUHTXHVWHGWKDWD7UDIILF,PSDFW$QDO\VLVEHFRQGXFWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&LW\¶VJXLGHOLQHV
$SSURYLQJ WKLV SURMHFW ZLOO QHJDWLYHO\ LPSDFW DOO VXUURXQGLQJ QHLJKERUKRRGV DQG VLQJOHIDPLO\
UHVLGHQFHV
6LQFHUHO\
/HH%XVHQEDUN
(0RQWHFLWR$YH
/HH %XVHQEDUN
(0RQWHFLWR$YH

file:///S/Planning/Rezoning/Staff%20Reports/Working/2024/74-24-6/07_Correspondence/Opposition/text_0.txt[10/4/2024 10:26:18 AM]
3OHDVHSODFHWKLVLQILOHèº×ä
THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO SHOW THE 
CONERNS WITH THE COMPROMISE
The community's feedback regarding rezoning case # Z-74-24 – Turney Villas, located at the northeast corner of 
Turney Avenue and 21st was not fully addressed by the development team. (Senior Land Use Planner
Gammage & Burnham).  Despite our concerns, the changes made were minimal and did not align with our preferences:
1. We are not in favor of a large apartment complex in our neighborhood.
2. We would prefer a development that consists of owner-occupied units, which we believe would contribute to
increased property values.
3. The proximity of the property to the road, specifically 20 feet from Turney, creates a canyon effect that we find
undesirable.
The revised proposal, which includes reducing the building's height along Turney Ave and 21st St to 3 stories, is not 
considered acceptable. We believe that maintaining a similar height to the two-story buildings across the street, 
particularly on the south side of Turney, would be more appropriate. The reduction of 15% in the number of units, from 
75 to 64, can be accomplished within the parameters of R3A zoning at a lower height.
We are aware that the Planning Commission is scheduled to review this case with the proposed revisions on Thursday, 
October 10th, 2024, at 6 pm, under Item number 5. We would like to express that the current proposal does not reflect a 
genuine compromise and may be perceived as an attempt to increase the property's value for future sale. If the intention 
is to complete the project, we believe that a lower zoning designation could still facilitate development.
Granting approval for high density and height may set a precedent that could be attractive to developers eyeing 
properties further south on 21st Street. We hope that our concerns are taken into consideration during the review 
process.
John Paletta
East Morningside 
Neighborhood Association

file:///C/Users/052810/Documents/ProjectInformation/CamelbackEastVillage/Z-74-24-6%20Turney%2021St/text_01.txt[10/4/2024 10:46:04 AM]
They tried but really didn't give back much - Height - Density - Traffic are still a problem.  I still want the R3 which is 
doable but the developer is either greedy or want to resale once zoning is granted.
We have to make it very clear that if this go to city council we’ll force a 3/4 vote and they will get nothing.
Melessia is right about the traffic add to the nightmare at 20th Street and problem with the school children.
Height is still a problem because it will set a president all along 21st Street.
We don’t need a large apartment complex in our neighborhood - we could live with owner occupied at a longrt 
density.
PLEASE PLACE IN FILE

1
From:jpaletta1<jpaletta1@cox.net>
Sent:Saturday,August24,20245:40AM
To:TeleiaGalaviz<teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov>
Subject:MinutesfromcompromisemeetingͲrezoningcaseZͲ74Ͳ24Ͳ6
COMPROMISEMEETING08/23/24
Duringourrecentmeetingon8/23/24,wewerejoinedbytheattorney,developer,andpropertyownerstoengagein
discussionsregardingapotentialcompromise.ThemeetingwasattendedbyKathy,Robert,Betsy,Melissa,Leah,Russ,myself,
Rich(developer),andMarsh(lawyer).
Inthemeeting,thedeveloperpresentedhiscase,citingtheimpactofCOVIDandtheeconomytojustifyhisrequestfora
higherzoning,whichcouldimpactourpropertyvalue.Thelawyeralsoreferredtostudiesindicatingthatsurroundingproperty
valuescouldpotentiallyincreaseby8to10percentduetotheproposedapartments.
RussKitkland,presidentoftheHOAfortownhomesonCampbell,providedrealͲlifeexamplescounteringthelawyer's
statement.Russhadconductedameetingwithpropertyownersinhiscomplex,andtheyvotedagainsttherezoning.
RobertGreenbergeloquentlyelucidatedthatthedevelopercouldcurrentlydeveloplowͲdensitymultifamilyunitsthatwould
betteralignwiththeestablishedneighborhoodunderthecurrentzoning,andthedeveloperagreed.
BetsyGreenbergcounteredthedeveloper'sassertionregardingthecommunity'ssupportfortheprojectbyhighlightinghow
theCamelbackVillagePlanningCommitteeopposedtherezoningwitha9Ͳ7vote,suggestingalackofoverallsupport.
Kathyadeptlyfacilitatedthemeetingandconveyedourconcernsregardingtraffic,height,anddensity.
Leahskillfullyaddressedtrafficconcernsandchallengedthelimitedscopeofthetrafficstudy.Sheproposedcomprehensive
trafficstudiesbythecityforthesurroundingareaandemphasizedthattheprojectmaynotbetermedasaninfill
development,asitdoesnotalignwiththecity'sdefinitionofinfill.
WeweresuccessfulinobtainingamuchͲneededcontinuance,providinguswithanothermonthtoorganizetheneighborhood.
Kathyproposedholdinganothermeetingtoreviewnewplanfromthedeveloper,suggestingtheuseoftheDevonshireSenior
CitizensCenter.
ItisessentialtokeepinmindthatthedeveloperrequestedthecontinuancetodemonstratetothePlanningCommissionthat
theyhaveengagedwiththeneighborhood.
WeneedtopreparefortheCouncilMeetingbyadvocatingforourstancetothePlanningCommission,draftingletterstothe
PlanningCommission,andinitiatingapetitionagainsttheproject.Thepetitionshouldinvolvestreetcaptainsfordistributing
flyersandgeneratingsupportthroughsignaturesonpetition.
ThesupermajorityfortheCityCouncilholdsgreatsignificance,asitwillnecessitatea2/3majorityvote.Propertyowners
within600feetoftheprojectcarryparticularweight.
WehaveatwoͲmonthtimeframetopreparefortheCityCouncilmeeting.ThismatterwillbebroughtbeforetheCityCouncil
becausewhoeverlosesatthePlanningCommissionwillappealtotheCityCouncil.
SentfromYahooMailforiPhone[mail.onelink.me]

1
Subject:
FW: Rebuttal to Staff Report Z-74-24-6
From:jpaletta1<jpaletta1@cox.net>
Sent:Wednesday,August21,20247:31PM
To:TeleiaGalaviz<teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov>
Subject:RebuttaltoStaffReportZͲ74Ͳ24Ͳ6
PleaseDistributetoPlanningCommissionRebuttaltoStaffReportZͲ74Ͳ24Ͳ6EastVillagePlanningCommitteeDate:August6,2024PhoenixPlanningCommissionHearingDate:September5,2024RequestFrom:RͲ3(MultifamilyResidence)(1.റ82acres)
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
Please Distribute to Planning Commission 
Rebuttal to Staff Report Z-74-24-6
East Village Planning Committee 
Date: August 6, 2024 
Phoenix Planning Commission Hearing 
Date: September 5, 2024 
Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence) (1.82 acres) 
Request To: R-5 (Multifamily Residence) (1.82 acres) 
Proposal: Multifamily Apartments 
Location: Northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Ave 
Applicant Representative: Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, PLC 
Staff Recommendation: 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"Create new development or redevelopment sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods' scale and
character and incorporate adequate development standards to prevent negative impact(s) on
residential properties." 
Rebuttal: 
The proposed development is out of character with our neighborhood, which currently does not have
any four-story apartment complexes south of Campbell Road. Allowing such a tall structure would set
a precedent that is inconsistent with the existing urban landscape and community makeup. 
Zoning Integrity 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The proposal, as stipulated, will allow new residential development in a neighborhood with a range of
existing residential use types. As stipulated, the proposal will provide a large building setback along the
north property lines to buffer the use from the single-family residences to the north." 
Rebuttal: 
The proposed transition from R-3 to R-5 zoning represents a substantial increase in building height and
density. Such a transition risks disrupting the balance and integrity of our neighborhood, altering its
character in ways that are inconsistent with the existing urban fabric. 
Compatibility with Neighborhood 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The proposal is a compatible use of equal size and type in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal
will also complement the area by providing a range of housing types by the Housing Phoenix Plan." 
Rebuttal:

2
While there are apartment complexes zoned R-5 in our neighborhood, they are not four stories high
and have significant setbacks from the street and surrounding neighbors. This approach ensures
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and maintains the established character of the area.
The proposed zoning change represents an excessive increase in density that undermines the
suburban nature of our community and threatens to alter its character permanently. 
Streetscape and Design Standards 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The proposal, as stipulated, incorporates streetscape and design standards to promote a pedestrian-
friendly environment along 21st Street and Turney that is compatible with the surrounding residential
development." 
Rebuttal: 
The proposed development introduces a four-story apartment complex south of Campbell Road, a
significant departure from the existing character of our neighborhood. The tallest structures in the area
are well below this height and are set back significantly from the street and neighboring properties. The
transition from R-3 to R-5 zoning introduces an excessive increase in density, which is inconsistent with
the neighborhood's character and could have a lasting negative impact. 
BACKGROUND/ISSUES/ANALYSIS 
Subject Site: 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The request is to rezone 1.82 acres located at the corner of 21st Street and Turney, from R-3 to R-5 
for multifamily residential development." 
Rebuttal: 
The property owner prefers a development plan that prioritizes owner-occupied residences. The
surrounding neighborhood includes townhomes to the south and east, with owner-occupied units 
extending to Campbell Avenue. This approach aims to create a cohesive community with long-term 
residents, fostering greater stability and investment in the neighborhood. 
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"There are single-family and multifamily residences to the north zoned R-3 and to the south, across
Turney Avenue, is a multifamily development zoned R-5. To the west, across 21st Street, is a
multifamily residential development zoned R-5." 
Rebuttal: 
Most of the properties are owner-occupied, and the R-5 zoning for the existing developments resulted
from compromises with the city. For example, the R-5 zoning to the west was granted as part of a
compromise after the corner of 20th Street and Campbell was rezoned to Mid-Rise in 1978. The R-5 
development is set back 30 feet with parking in the front, which reduces the impact of the three-story 
buildings. 
Similarly, the small R-5 parcel to the south was part of a compromise with the city and a developer who
initially sought to build 216 units on the entire block. Zoning case 104-96-6 was approved, resulting in
downzoning the parcel to R-2 for 65 townhomes to act as a buffer between the R-5 development and 
the neighborhood. It was stipulated that two-story units would be constructed along the perimeter, down
Turney Avenue and south on 21st Street, with a small section of three-story units in the center. 
General Plan Land Use Map: 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The General Plan Land Use Map depicts the site and the properties to the north, south, and east with
a designation of Residential 10 to 15 dwellings units per acre. The request to rezone the site to R-5 is

3
not consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Map; however, a General Plan Amendment is not
required as the site is under 10 acres." 
Rebuttal: 
When developing vacant or underdeveloped land in older parts of the city, it’s crucial to ensure that the
proposed development is compatible with existing development in the area and aligns with long-term 
goals. Encouraging reasonable levels of increased intensity in development while respecting local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods is key. 
Proposal: 
Site Plan Overview: 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The site plan proposes a 75-unit multifamily residential development with an outdoor amenity area, a
pool, a clubhouse, and a gym. The plan includes 96 parking spaces located along the northern sides q
the building, secure bicycle parking within the residential building, and the northeast parking lot. Full
driveway access to the parking lots will be from 21st Street and Turney Avenue. Landscaping along
the northern property line will feature trees and shrubs to provide additional buffering along the property 
perimeter. A detached sidewalk along Turney and an attached sidewalk along 21st Street will provide
pedestrian connections to the adjacent residential developments in the area. The sidewalks will include
trees for shade coverage. However, due to the need to seek variances for the patio projections within
the building, landscape setbacks along 21st and Turney Avenue, and a reduction in parking, the staff
does not recommend general conformance to the site plan." 
Rebuttal: 
It’s important to consider the following information regarding the 75-unit multifamily apartment
development: The inclusion of amenities such as the pool, clubhouse, gym, 96 parking spaces (ideally
150 spaces), bicycle parking, landscaping, and sidewalk contributes to the overall cost of the project.
The developer is advocating for the property owner to potentially reconsider the value of their property,
expressing concerns that adding apartments to the neighborhood may hurt property values and the
neighborhood's well-being, potentially resulting in increased profits for the developer. 
However, due to the necessary variances for patio projections within the building, landscape setbacks
along 21st and Turney Avenue, and a reduction in parking, the staff does not recommend general
conformance to the site plan. 
Findings: 
John Roanhorse's Statement: 
"The proposal is appropriate at this location and is consistent with the scale and existing area. The
proposal, as stipulated, will incorporate landscaping shading that will enhance the location, consistent
with General Plan goals and principles. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with
the Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030." 
Rebuttal: 
The proposal is not suitable for this location because the closest four-story structure is located half a
mile away on 20th Street and Highland. The R-5 zoning was granted through a compromise, and the
stipulated landscaping and shading won't be binding after the rezoning is approved. The Housing
Phoenix Plan goal is 88% satisfied and should not be a factor in this rezoning. 
Conclusion: 
This project to rezone a parcel in a residential neighborhood, which will negatively impact the property
owner, should be handled neutrally. The role of the city planner should be to provide a report of the
project strictly based on the zoning ordinances. 
This staff report favors the application in tone and presentation, which is not the staff member's job.
The merits of the rezoning should be presented by the lawyers, not the city staff. When entering an

4
established residential neighborhood and requesting rezoning from R-3 to R-5, it’s essentially asking
the property owners to devalue their property to cover the costs of the proposed apartment complex. 
This parcel could be developed under the current R-3 zoning, which would: 
Provide the city with the units for the Housing Plan for 2030. 
Ensure the developers achieve a profit on their investment. 
Deliver a project compatible with the existing neighborhood. 
Reduce traffic in the neighborhood. 
Provide neighborhood sidewalks and landscaping.

Robert DeLorey 
2201 E. Roma Avenue 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
 602.757.7324 
August 15, 2024 
City of Phoenix 
Planning and Development Department 
200 W. Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
RE: Rezoning Case: Z 74-24-6 
I respectfully request you deny the rezoning application of case #Z 74-24-6 for the following reasons. 
x
Zoning - the transition from R-2 to R-5 will set the precedent for other developers to request rezoning
for other smaller apartment complexes along 21st Street between Glenrosa and Campbell.
x
Utilities – The existing water and sewer pipelines from the 1950s supplying Turney Ave between 21st
and 22nd streets are inadequate to accommodate the excessive burden of another 75 residences above
the current utility loading.
x
Privacy – the loss of existing views from neighboring properties will be adversely affected by the height
of the development and will allow direct view into many homes and backyards.
x
Visual impact - The rendering shows the building pushed out to the corner of 21st Street and Turney
which will create a canyon effect at the corner.
x
Height Discrepancy - The proposed 4 story development is exceedingly high, out-of-scale and out of
character in terms of its appearance compared with existing developments in the vicinity.
x
Increased traffic and street parking - Our local streets are narrow and cannot be safely driven when
cars are parked on both sides of Turney Ave. Adding another 100+ vehicles will disrupt local traffic, and
will negatively affect Madison Camelview school ingress / egress when in session.  The parking lot of
the proposed property will almost certainly be unable to accommodate the large number of tenant
vehicles; considering most residents will have roommates and multiple cars per unit.
Respectfully, 
Robert F. DeLorey

Kathy DeLorey 
2201 E. Roma Avenue 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
602.725.0315 
August 12, 2024 
City of Phoenix 
Planning and Development Department 
200 W. Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
RE: Rezoning Case: Z 74-24-6 
I am requesting you to deny the rezoning application of case #Z 74-24-6 for the following 
reasons. 
x
Gammage & Burnham has not held neighborhood meetings to address the residents’
concerns.
x
Privacy – the loss of existing views from neighboring properties will be adversely be
affected by the height of the development and will allow direct view into many homes,
and backyards.
x
Visual impact - The rendering shows the building pushed out to the corner of 21st Street
and Turney which will create a canyon effect at the corner.
x
Height Discrepancy - The proposed 4 story development is unacceptably high, it’s over-
bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with
existing developments in the vicinity.
x
Zoning - the transition from R-2 to R-5 will set the precedent for other developers to
request rezoning for other small apartment complexes along 21st Street between
Glenrosa and Turney.
x
Increased traffic and street parking - our local streets are narrow and cannot be driven
safely when cars are parked on both sides even with the current population. This influx
of vehicles will not only disrupt our neighborhood but also pose safety risks especially
when Madison Camelview Elementary School is in session. Additionally, the parking lot
of the property will almost certainly be unable to accommodate the large number of
rental units; considering most residents will have roommates and multiple cars per unit.
Respectfully, 
Kathy DeLorey

Royden Hudnall
2130 E Turney Ave #1
Phoenix, AZ, 85016
Roydenhud98@gmail.com
480.384.0336
8/7/2024
John Roanhorse
Planner Camelback East Village
City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 W Washington St
Phoenix, AZ, 85003
Dear John,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning density increase that would
allow the construction of a four-story apartment complex in our neighborhood located at 4405 N
21st St, Phoenix, AZ 85016. This development raises several critical concerns that I believe
will adversely affect the character and quality of life in our community.
Privacy Concerns
The proposed four-story apartment complex will significantly invade our neighborhood's privacy.
The height of the building will allow direct views into many of our homes, backyards, and rooftop
decks, compromising the privacy that families in our community value and deserve.
Increased Traffic and Street Parking
The development of a high-density apartment complex will lead to a considerable increase in
traffic on our quiet residential streets. This influx of vehicles will not only disrupt the tranquility of
our neighborhood but also pose safety risks and elevate noise levels, impacting the quality of
life for all residents, especially when Madison Camelview Elementary School is in session.
Additionally, the parking lot of the property will almost certainly be unable to accommodate the
large number of units proposed, especially considering most residents will have roommates and
multiple cars.
Height Discrepancy
The proposed development is out of character with our neighborhood, which currently does not
have any four-story apartment complexes south of Campbell Rd that are not on a major road
like Indian School. Allowing such a tall structure would set a precedent that is inconsistent with
the existing urban landscape and makeup of our community.
Zoning Integrity
While there are apartment complexes zoned R-5 in our neighborhood, they are not four stories
high and they have significant setbacks from the street and surrounding neighbors, which fits
within the neighborhood. The transition from R-2 to R-5 zoning represents an excessive

1
John Roanhorse
From:
Royden Hudnall <roydenhud98@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 7, 2024 5:48 PM
To:
John Roanhorse
Subject:
Re: Opposition Letter: 4405 N 21st St
Attachments:
Opposition Letter_ 4405 N. 21st St..pdf
 
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.  
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this 
email.  
    Report Suspicious    
 
Hi John, 
 
I sent you one of the drafts that I created for the opposition letter on accident. Attached is the final version I would like 
to be added to the case file. Below is my original email as well. Please confirm receipt of this email.  - Thank you! 
 
Thanks for returning my call earlier, I appreciate your time. As mentioned, I attended the Village Planning Committee 
meeting for Camelback East last night and spoke in opposition to the project located at 4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ 
85016. 
I have attached my letter of opposition to the project and kindly request that you distribute it to the members of the 
committee.  
Additionally, I would like to address concerns regarding the voicemail I left for Rick Kafka. Rick solicited me, asking if 
there was anything he could do to help alleviate concerns from our HOA regarding the project. I suggested building a 
community center and granting us permanent access to the development's amenities. As my property is directly 
adjacent to the project, I am particularly concerned about the potential negative impact on our home values, even more 
so than my fellow neighbors due to the proximity of the project. My suggestion was an attempt to proactively offset the 
anticipated loss in equity if the project proceeds. If necessary, I can provide voicemails and phone records to 
demonstrate that Rick solicited me. 
Ultimately, I believe this was not a genuine effort to address our HOA and neighborhood concerns. Instead, I feel it was 
an attempt to discredit me, the petition I created, and the legitimate concerns raised by my fellow neighbors and myself. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of my letter. 
Best regards, 
Royden Hudnall 
 
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 5:36ථPM Royden Hudnall <roydenhud98@gmail.com> wrote:

2
Hi John, 
Thanks for returning my call earlier, I appreciate your time. As mentioned, I attended the Village Planning Committee 
meeting for Camelback East last night and spoke in opposition to the project located at 4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ 
85016. 
I have attached my letter of opposition to the project and kindly request that you distribute it to the members of the 
committee.  
Additionally, I would like to address concerns regarding the voicemail I left for Rick Kafka. Rick solicited me, asking if 
there was anything he could do to help alleviate concerns from our HOA regarding the project. I suggested building a 
community center and granting us permanent access to the development's amenities. As my property is directly 
adjacent to the project, I am particularly concerned about the potential negative impact on our home values, even 
more so than my fellow neighbors due to the proximity of the project. My suggestion was an attempt to proactively 
offset the anticipated loss in equity if the project proceeds. If necessary, I can provide voicemails and phone records to 
demonstrate that Rick solicited me. 
Ultimately, I believe this was not a genuine effort to address our HOA and neighborhood concerns. Instead, I feel it was 
an attempt to discredit me, the petition I created, and the legitimate concerns raised by my fellow neighbors and 
myself. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of my letter. 
Best regards, 
Royden Hudnall

increase in density. Permitting such a drastic change undermines the suburban nature of our
community and threatens to alter its character permanently.
The most dangerous aspect of this proposal is the precedent it will set for other small multifamily
lots located along 21st St and Turney Ave. This precedent will be seen by other developers,
allowing them to assemble a couple of these lots and build 75-100 unit apartment complexes.
This development is 4 feet higher than the next tallest building in the area. What is to stop a
developer from building a structure that is 4 feet higher than this one in the future, possibly even
adding an extra story? This precedent could create a snowball effect, with future projects using
this as precedent to build higher and more dense projects - leading to unreasonable height and
density throughout our neighborhood. I have attached a map of the apartment complexes I
worry could be assembled for similar developments if this project is allowed to move forward.

Ɣ
The subject site is highlighted in Red
Ɣ
The small apartment complexes are highlighted in Green
ż
There are 12 parcels on this map, only two or three of these parcels would need
to be assembled in order to build a similar development as the one proposed at
4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ 85016
City of Phoenix Macro Housing Development Concern
I would like to address the concerns raised by some council members last night regarding the
housing shortage in Phoenix. It is imperative to emphasize that the current need is not for
additional market-rate apartment developments but rather for more affordable housing options. I
further argue that the heart of a residential neighborhood in a middle class area is not the
correct place to put an affordable or government subsidized development and could adversely
affect the community's character and quality of life - even more than this development does.
The City of Phoenix has seen a significant increase in the construction of market-rate multifamily
properties over the last four years. However, despite this boom, there remains a critical shortage
of housing, particularly in affordable homes and workforce housing. According to recent data,
the problem is not a lack of apartment complexes; in fact, vacancy rates in market-rate
apartments have been steadily rising. In Phoenix “occupancy [is] down 80 basis points
year-over-year through March, to 93.1%.” “Yardi Matrix forecasts that Phoenix’s inventory will
grow by 3.3% this year, ranking ninth for projected inventory expansion among the country’s top
30 metros.” (Matrix Phoenix Multifamily Report). The real issue lies in the shortage of affordable
and workforce housing options. These lower rent options are where the gap exists, and this is
where the focus should be.
In the past five years, Phoenix has experienced a significant boom in multifamily development,
adding nearly 14,000 new apartment units in 2023 alone, a 90% increase from the previous
year (RentCafe) (Rose Law Group Reporter). This surge places Phoenix among the top U.S.
cities for new apartment construction, alongside major metros like New York and Miami. Despite
this rapid growth, the city's housing shortage persists, particularly in affordable housing. Arizona
ranks among the five worst states for affordable housing availability, with a critical shortfall for
low-income renters (UMOM). Addressing this issue requires shifting focus from market-rate to
affordable housing developments to meet the actual needs of the population.
The "Matrix Multifamily Phoenix Report" from June 2024 highlights that while Phoenix has
added numerous market-rate units, the occupancy rates in these new developments are
declining, pointing to a surplus in the market-rate segment. “Nearly 92% of the [multifamily
construction] volume underway was in Lifestyle communities, followed by fully affordable assets
(7.0%)” (Matrix Phoenix Multifamily Report). Additionally, according to UMOM, the Phoenix
Metro Area faces a significant shortfall in affordable housing, with a deficit of over 250,000
affordable and available rental homes for low-income renters (UMOM). This underscores the
urgent need to address the affordable housing crisis rather than adding more market-rate units,
which do not meet the current demand for lower-income housing.

Community Petition Against Zoning Density Increase
In response to the proposed zoning density increase, I initiated a community petition to gather
support and express our collective concerns. The petition has garnered 169 signatures from
neighbors and other members of the public who share our apprehensions about the potential
impacts of the development. This strong community response highlights the widespread
opposition to the project and underscores the significant concerns regarding privacy invasion,
increased traffic, and the setting of a precedent for unreasonable height and density in our
neighborhood. The support for this petition demonstrates our community's commitment to
preserving the character and quality of life in our area, reinforcing the need for careful
consideration by the zoning board. I have included the link to the petition below:
Petition: Opposition to Zoning Density Increase at 4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ 85016
Conclusion
In conclusion, I strongly urge the zoning board and other decision makers to reject the proposed
zoning density increase. The privacy, safety, and character of our community are at stake, and it
is essential to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood for current and future residents.
Addressing the real housing needs of Phoenix, focusing on affordable and workforce housing,
will better serve our city's long-term interests and maintain the quality of life we cherish.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Royden Hudnall

1 
PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
©2023 CBRE, INC. 
City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re:
Support for Rezoning Request Z-74-24-6
Northeast Corner of 21st St and Turney Ave.
To Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Village Planning Committee and the Planning 
Department:
I am writing in support of the proposed multifamily community at the northeast corner of 21st
Street and Turney Ave.  I have lived in this area for many years and believe that the proposed 
development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, replacing what is an outdated 
property and bringing investment into the community.  
In addition, I do not agree with the statement that the proposed apartment community will have a 
negative impact on the surrounding area.  The proposed location is in an area where there are 
several existing multifamily properties, some of which already have R-5 zoning. The proposed 
placement of the building makes sense for the property and was clearly designed to be as far 
away from the surrounding properties as possible.  I do not believe that the proposed height or 
density is out of character for what is an urban area and would like to see the request approved 
for this property. 
Sincerely, 
Chad Lafferty
2019 E Campbell Ave #105
Phoenix, AZ 85016

1
From:
Courtney Anderson <cmande56@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:14 AM
To:
PDD Planning Commission
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix. 
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this 
email. 
 Report Suspicious 
Dear Planning Commission Members, 
My name is Courtney and I’m reaching out as a resident of the City of Phoenix and Arizona native to support 
the Turney Villas project Z-74-24-6 on the October 10 Planning Commission agenda. 
According to a new report by the Morrison Institute [morrisoninstitute.asu.edu], rents in Arizona increased by 
72% from 2010 to 2022. This has put tremendous stress on middle and low-income workers in our state. In 
August, almost 8,000 Maricopa county residents [azcentral.com] faced eviction filings. Homelessness has also 
increased and is at the highest level since 2010. In 2023, there were 14,237 people who experienced 
homelessness, including over a thousand older adults.  
Arizona’s housing crisis requires ongoing investments in housing, and this project will bring 64 new units to a 
neighborhood that already supports a mixture of density and types of housing. 
This project is a much needed source of housing for the City of Phoenix. While this one project will not solve 
the crisis, we must do everything we can to ensure that every Arizonan can be at home and live a stable, 
purposeful life. 
For these reasons, I support this project. 
Sincerely, 
Courtney Anderson 
2202 N 28th Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85008 
--  
Courtney Anderson 
email: cmande56@gmail.com 
phone: 602.980.3125

City of Phoenix 
Planning and Development Department 
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Re: 
Support for Rezoning Request Z-74-24-6 
Northeast Corner of 21st St and Turney Ave. 
To Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Village Planning Committee and the Planning 
Department: 
I am writing in support of the proposed multifamily community at the northeast corner of 21st
Street and Turney Ave.  I have lived in this area for many years and believe that the proposed 
development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, replacing what is an outdated 
property and bringing investment into the community.   
In addition, I do not agree with the statement that the proposed apartment community will have a 
negative impact on the surrounding area.  The proposed location is in an area where there are 
several existing multifamily properties, some of which already have R-5 zoning. The proposed 
placement of the building makes sense for the property and was clearly designed to be as far 
away from the surrounding properties as possible.  I do not believe that the proposed height or 
density is out of character for what is an urban area and would like to see the request approved 
for this property.  
Sincerely,  
Kevin McDaniels 
Resident 
4114 N. 28th St 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
rely,

)5<?0$?(0#? );?
+//)/'?/"?#:#+01-#/5?#125-#/5?
	??4? )/'50/?52##6
?	
+002?
(0#/);??
?
#?
711025?&3?	
?
026(#45?0.#2?0%	 
6?/"?82/#<?:#?
#2?09/!)?-/?0 )/40/?/"?-#+ !*?45?)+,'#?+//)/'?0--)55##?
I!6IE<1?17I ?/1>I5'??'<I?8I'F:<'>>I6GI>A::8<?I)9<I?/'I<'H8717.I<';A'>?I!?I?/'I78<?/'!>?I%8<7'<I8(I

?I!7&II
'GIC'7A'I'H8717.I!>'I8	I ID/1%/I>''4>I?8I<'H87'I?/'I:<8:'<@GI-86I
I?8II
A5?1)#615GI 8717.
I8D7II<'>1I '7?1!5I17C'>?6'7?I:<8:'<@1'>I&1<'%?5GI!%<8>>I-86I?/'I>A$2'%?I>1?'I I0!C'I!I>1.71+%!7?I
17?'<'>?I17I?I 1>I!<'!I!7&I!6I'F%1?'&I?8I>''I7'DI17C'>?6'7?I17I?/'I!<'!I'>:'%1!55GI?8I?/'I>A$2'%?I
:!<%'5I?/!?I1I A7&'<A?151H'&I!7&I7''&I8(IA:&!?17.I"7&I<'&'C'58:6'7?	II$'51'C'I?/!?I?/'I:<8:8>!5I1>I
78?I875GI!7I!::<8:<1!?'IA>'I ,<I?/'I:<8:'<?GI$A?ID155I$'I!I D'5%86'I!&&1?187I?8I ?/'I !<'!I /'I
&'C'58:6'I
:5!7ID155I'7/!7%'I?/'I>?<''?>%!:'I!7&I$<17.I6A%/7''&'&I16:<8C'6'7?>I514'I?/'I
!&&1?187I8(I 1&'D!54>I!587.I?/'I:<8:'<?GI:'<16'?'<ID/1%/I1>I!I7'1./$8</88&I$'7'+?I
I!6I*6151I <ID1?/I?/'I:<8:8>'&I>1?'I:5!7I!7&I!::<'%1!?'I?/!?I?/'I!:!<?6'7?I$A15&17.I1>I%58>'I?8I?/'I
%8='<I8(I?<''?I!7&IB'GIIC'7A'ID/1%/ID155I!558DI,<I:!<417.I!7&I5!7&>%!:'I$'?D''7I?/'I
$A15&17.I!7I 617'I!7&I6GI7'1./$8<>
I:<8:'<?1'>
I I!5>8I?/174I?/!?I?/'I:<8:8>'&I0'1./?I!7&I&'7>1?GI
!<'I!::<8:<1I ?'I!7&ID155I78@I7'.!?1C'5GI16:!%?I?/'I!<'!I!>I6!7GI8(I?/'I7'!<$GI:<8:'<?1'>I!<'I!5<'!&GI
>?8<GI6AI?1)#615GI:<8:'<?1'>I>1615!<I17I/'1./?
/'I:<8:8>I &I%866A71?GI1>I!7I'F%'55'7?IA>'I8(I?/'I:<8:'<?GI!7&II$'51'C'I?/1>I:<83'%?ID155I$'7'+?I
?/'I%866AI 1?GI!7&I1>I!::<8:<1!?'I)9<I?/1>I58%!?187I
=>?
14'I'7'I
















	




	
]ƱÅƲŶƈǔMWǔNHOSǔ
(ƉLJǔō¸ǔlËš)ǃǔ
mă|ĜÞÆǔ
ĝǔaƽ›ĄĸŎėœ3ǔb#ŏ
ŵ-ĞƊǔ
PIJǔyŷƋǔz}Ìß	3ğǔuƌ؝žƍǔ
n%ŸĠ*DŽ<ǔřàǐĹ
ǔ
^ƭƮ ġƎáĢYǔh0&ǔĺ~&
ǔ
qdZǔ¡ǑĻģâǔ
ǔ{ǔXTAQUBVǔ
c1ǔiŚCǔ rļ
Ĥ'śŸ¢ǔ
gǔǁãŹÍǔƏĽǔDžŐ1źǔ-LjǔŻƐŭǔƳľ27ǔƑ
ǔ4Îǔ
ƾ£ǔŜ¤¹ŝǔs#ǒä	ǔ!
Dǔ
żǔ
ĥǔĦŞǔĿºǔ
ǔ»€.,Ǐǔ¥ƒƴ

ħƓǔåƔ%æǔƕ'ǔ!
ąŠ
Āǔe
ŽƖǔxçđ
	ǔ“

èǔ
ǔljéÇǔ/Ůǔ
5ςĨǔ RKLǔőŀŒĆ¦ǔ(ƗÐêĩǔ oÑĪëdž[ǔ
8
)Ēƒ‹ćǔŗ
ē*ƘNJǔžƙ„ÄǔÒƵǔìǔ
ǔĘ
þşǔ
Eǔf0Šǔ/
īNjǔ¼ǔƶšǔ
ŁœĈ§ǔƚÓǔłƛǔŃ½ǔÔƜ¨ǔíǔ
ǔ	Ţ©
Ɲǔ2 ǔ ĉń=ǔ6Õǔîę

Ĭǔ¾ǔƷĖǔ
ǔ.
ǔǔƞǔǔ
ůţªŽƟ«”ǔ5ŅǔÖŔǔĚ
ā$ǔŰĭƠſǔ
ÂÃŌŴ•
Ċ¬Fǔ
v×­ǔŤņƀ®–ǔťÿ¯ơǔï¿ǔ
ŕŦŇƿ°">ǔýǔƢðƸƣ$ǔ6ǔ4Øǔű
Ƥ+ĮǔÀǔƥÙñǔòě
ċ
ǔóǔ
ǔƦ
ôį
,ǔ
İǀõŲŊıIJƧ…ČĔǎǔųƁijöŒč±ǔÁ†Ú÷ ǔ
_‘ŧ—øÈĎnj?ǔ ùƨǔ+ƂǔƹŨɲ˜ǔƩÛ
ƪǔ7ÜǔũǓŋúĴ	ǔ‡ǔ;ǔ
Ūň8™Gǔ
³ƃŖ´’ưƺďǍ@ǔ
j
ĵˆÊû	ǔkǂĶūǔ
`ƻķƫǔÝüЉ"
9Ƅ\ǔwǔ ǔpµ
Ăǔ
tƼƅƯĕ¶Ŭ:ƆǔʼnƇƬ·ǔ

C4;(C8%1AC9!C:+?&C
)5'2,@
C-B63C	C

C
>="*./ $<#70C

r
ĔUĔO()RĔ
`£ďĔĔk›Î¤ĆĔ
l¸¥Ä
ĔĔc
'
¹Ù¿
&Ĕd
8ï	ðĔ
PL(ĔuEĔvy-¦šĔsñÜŠòĔ
mœ
ŧćĔ]wĔYVMNQĔ
^èZĔiϝÆĔo"6
Ĕ
*f[Ĕ*‹đÕÇ#
Ĕa
\ĔxĔXSC)TDWĔ
eĔjÝFĔp":GĔ
hĔĄ#žĔ=ĔŒĈÞĔÀĊĔéæ
Ĕ>ÚóĔ!Ø$ĔŸ
ĔÐĂ
Ĕ
ß
 
‚Ĕq
ĒÖ¨™Ĕbz
HĔ
gĔÁ4ċĔ©ýĐ	êĔёĔn.	ȪĉĔ 
Ĕ|
Ĕ5’Ĕ
-º
Ĕ«Ĕ“Ĕ

ôĔ+5
ÍĔ{Ĕ;"	Ĕþ9&Ĕ¬»É 
ĔÒ!Ĕ
ëÿČĔ?Ĕ
ÂʃĔ	
,ĔõĔ	Ĕ à$}ö„Ĕ˜áĔ

Ĕ6Ĕ8
íĔ—%
IĔ
t¡
ĔÛçÓì,Ĕ%·	~<@Ĕ®”Ĕ'
Ĕ
Ĕ:â¯<	Ĕ–7Ĕ;.
Ĕ
#
/9/Ĕ˅Ĕą°¼Ĕ÷ã0>ø
ĔùĔ
¢
Ĕ7%
€&04Ĕ!Ĕ=Ĕ±3ŽĔÌĔĔ
Ā
ú2
AĔ'²×
3½čĔ
³2
Ĕ•
JĔ
_+Ô䆴
ĎBĔµĔ1íĔāå

‡ĔûĔü¶
Ĕē1
Ĕ
Ĕ$ăˆKĔ

City of Phoenix 
Planning and Development Department 
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Re: 
Support for Rezoning Request Z-74-24-6 
Northeast Corner of 21st St and Turney Ave. 
To Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Village Planning Committee and the 
Planning Department: 
My name is James Sean McGettigan.  I am writing in support of the proposed multifamily 
community at the northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Ave.   
I have lived in this area for many years for the vibrant neighborhood it is and continues to evolve 
into being.  The proposed development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, 
replacing an outdated property and bringing much needed investment into the community. I 
would love this area to evolve similar in nature to 16th Street and Highland or 36th – 40th Street 
and Campbell with areas for fitness studios, coffee shops, co-working spaces, etc. providing 
additional areas to gather and feel the vibrancy.    
I do not agree with the statement that the proposed apartment community would have a negative 
impact on the surrounding area and wish it incorporated more of the surrounding properties into 
the design and build.  The proposed location is in an area where there are several existing 
multifamily properties, some of which already have R-5 zoning. The proposed placement of the 
building maximizes the property’s highest and best use while clearly designed to minimize the 
impact on the surrounding properties. 
I do not believe that the proposed height or density is out of character for the area and would like 
to see the request approved for this property and welcome continued development and 
investment in the area. 
Best Regards,  
James Sean McGettigan