Attachment G - Opposition PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7-8.pdf

1
Adam Stranieri
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Wednesday, March 4, 2020 8:14 AM
To:
Julianna Pierre; Adam Stranieri
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19
FYI 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
From: Ernst Bauer <ERNST.BAUER@asu.edu>  
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 6:20 PM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha 
Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19 
Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff, 
Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for both LVPC and PHO review next week.  I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. 
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the 
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the 
Planning Department.  Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this 
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the
City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19. 
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City 
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of 
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on 
site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 
as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning 
as required.   
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to 
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In 
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008. 
Attachment G

2
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting 
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a 
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City 
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
Dr. Ernst Bauer 
Professor Emeritus 
11581 S 28th Ave 
Laveen 
AZ 85339 
e-mail: ernst.bauer@asu.edu 
Webpage: http://ernstbauer.physics.asu.edu [ernstbauer.physics.asu.edu]

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Monday, March 23, 2020 7:52 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO 1-19)
 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: D M <darcy3535@gmail.com>  
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 4:43 PM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO 1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
I request you DENY Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before the Planning Commission on April 2. The City of 
Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 (one house per 
acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter. 
  
The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and 
community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing! Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
Respectfully,

2
Name Darcy Meyer 
Address 3535 W Bohl St, Laveen Village, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Monday, March 23, 2020 7:52 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan
Cc:
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: Sarah VanSchyndel <sarah.vanschyndel@gmail.com>  
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 5:58 AM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor 
Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
Councilmen, Councilwomen and Madam Mayor; 
 
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you 
deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. 
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of 
the subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-7, on file with 
the Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the 
applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner 
as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19. 
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the 
City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For 
purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of 
building walls on site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48-month timing, the zoning 
was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by 
the City to revert the zoning as required. 
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty 
to enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the entire 
property. In addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 du/a to 0-1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 
20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 
2008. 
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting 
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a

2
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City 
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
Sarah Johns 
3913 W. Carver Rd. 
Laveen, AZ 85339 
 
-- 
Sarah Johns

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Monday, March 23, 2020 11:19 AM
To:
Danielle M Jordan; Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) - Planning Commision Hearing - April 2, 2020
 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: Scott Johnson <sjohnson@scottjce.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 11:15 AM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor 
Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: 'Cyd Manning' <SweetBeat@q.com> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) ‐ Planning Commision Hearing ‐ April 2, 2020 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2.  I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the 
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the 
Planning Department.  Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this 
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the
City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City 
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of 
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on 
site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 
as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning 
as required.   
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to 
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In 
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

2
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting 
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a 
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City 
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
Thank you for your consideration, Scott Johnson 
 
Scott Johnson, President 
Hangar Haciendas HOA 
3143 W. Avion Way 
Laveen, AZ 85339 
602‐320‐2382 
sjohnson@scottjce.com 
 
 
[avg.com] 
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Monday, March 23, 2020 12:19 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Rezoning
 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: David Vaughan <azernot2@aol.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 12:15 PM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Rezoning 
 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2.  I respectfully request that you deny Z-165-06 (PHO-
1-19) as filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the subject property 
and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-7, on file with the Planning Department.  Due to the 
site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, 
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes 
Stipulation 19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval 
of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of this stipulation, development 
shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 
2007 and with the 48-month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on the 
property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.  
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce these 
requirements to execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the entire property. In addition, the City should also 
execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 du/a to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 
zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and 
approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008. 
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple stipulation 
modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City Planning professionals and included, reviewed and 
approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density 
development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
Danielle M Jordan; Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7
 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:24 PM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor 
Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com> 
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton ‐ Z‐165‐06‐7 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2.  I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the 
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the 
Planning Department.  Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this 
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the
City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City 
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of 
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on 
site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 
as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning 
as required.   
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to 
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In 
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

2
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting 
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a 
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City 
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
 
Sincerely, 
Steven Dougherty 
Steven@StevenDougherty.com 
11222 S 39th Ln 
Laveen AZ 85339 
480‐430‐6130 Cell 
 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to 
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a 
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play 
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in 
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  If you have received this transmission in error, 
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its 
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner.

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Jo Ann Valenta <jovalenta@gmail.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 3:21 PM 
To: PDD Zoning <zoning@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) when it comes before the Planning Commission on 
April 2. The City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning 
be placed back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which 
violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter. 
  
The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not 
fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to 
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General 
Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
  
Jo Ann Valenta 
  
The Sanctuary at South Mountain 
3224 W Carver Road 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:40 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
 
 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
Planner II - Village Planner 
City of Phoenix 
Long Range Planning 
Office: 602-256-5648  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
 
 
From: sonya fazio <sonyafazio777@gmail.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:38 AM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Sofia Mastikhina 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) when it comes before you on January 13 and 15. The 
City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning be placed 
back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City 
Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter. 
  
The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not 
fit the area. 
  
Please do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move 
to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
  
Thank You for your time! 
Sonya Fazio 
2414 W Corral Rd 
Phoenix  AZ  85041

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: 
From: PDD Zoning  
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:26 AM 
To: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Adam Stranieri 
<Adam.Stranieri@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: FW:  
 
From the zoning mailbox. 
 
From: Brenda Miller <brendalynmiller@gmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:05 AM 
To: PDD Zoning <zoning@phoenix.gov> 
Subject:  
 
Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for both LVPC and PHO review next week.  I respectfully request that you deny Z‐165‐06 
(PHO‐1‐19) as filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the subject property 
and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the Planning Department.  Due to the 
site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, 
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes 
Stipulation 19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council 
approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of this stipulation, 
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”.  City Council approval was 
on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 as of 2011.  To date there has been no 
development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.  
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce 
these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In addition, the City 
should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the 
reverted S‐1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 
2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008. 
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple 
stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of 
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City Planning professionals and included, 
reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check 
for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify 
the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 
zoning. 
 
Brenda Miller 
219 W. Mountain Sage Drive 
Phoenix, AZ 85045

From: JK Bronson‐Groen <bronson‐groen@hotmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 7:44 AM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha 
Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council 
District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06‐07  
 
Good morning Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning 
Management and staff,  
 
I was surprised to see this posted on 35th ave and Carver rd. Due to these unprecedented times I do not believe holding 
a public hearing on April 2nd is appropriate. In lieu of attending the meeting I am emailing my thoughts and opinions 
regarding the changes and deletions being requested.  
 
The owner is again requesting deletion of section 19. I am requesting you deny Case Z‐165‐06‐07 when it 
comes before you on April 2nd. The City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their 
ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 (one house per 
acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning 
Ordinance and is a serious matter. The current owner is requesting to delete 
stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and community 
from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the 
area. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06‐07 as filed. Then immediately 
move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to 
S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the 
S‐1 zoning. 
 
Thank you for your time and assistance in this very important matter.  
 
Kyle Bronson 
503‐890‐7885 
4034 W Carver Rd 
Laveen, AZ 85339

3

Sent from Kyle's iPhone 
 
Begin forwarded message: 
From: JK Bronson‐Groen <bronson‐groen@hotmail.com> 
Date: January 13, 2020 at 9:56:09 AM MST 
To: "alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov" <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>, "joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov" 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>, Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>, "LaveenVPC@phoenix.gov" 
<LaveenVPC@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: "mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov" <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>, "council.district.7@phoenix.gov" 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>, "council.district.8@phoenix.gov" <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>, 
"council.district.3@phoenix.gov" <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>, "council.district.4@phoenix.gov" 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
  
Good Morning Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff,  
  
I am a resident on Carver Rd, our property backs the beautiful Carver Mountain. I was very concerned when I saw the 
rezoning notice posted on the large gravel pit at 35th ave and Carver. This area is beautiful farm country land with 
minimum 1 acre lots.  
  
I am requesting you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before you on January 13 and 15. The City of Phoenix 
first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 (one house per acre) as 
of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter. The current 
owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and community from 
providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. Do the required and right thing. Deny 
Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning 
reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter,  
  
Kyle Bronson 
4034 W Carver Rd.  
Laveen, AZ. 85339 
C – 503‐890‐7885 
  
  
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Kieran Prendergast <kieranfprendergast@gmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 2:40 PM 
To: PDD Zoning <zoning@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for both LVPC and PHO review next week.  I respectfully request that 
you deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific 
nature of the subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-
7, on file with the Planning Department.  Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district 
applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be 
treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 
19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of 
the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning 
Ordinance.  For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building 
permits and erection of building walls on site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 
48-month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on 
the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.  
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and 
duty to enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the 
entire property. In addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 
du/a to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set 
with Resolution 20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City 
Council on October 15, 2008. 
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are 
requesting multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this 
stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It 
was written by City Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This 
stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density 
development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
 
Sincerely, 
Kieran Prendergast 
313 W Osborn Rd Phoenix, AZ 85013

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Monday, March 30, 2020 8:20 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
Fwd: Please help
 
Get Outlook for iOS 
From: Leah <lmariern@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 9:02:38 AM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor 
Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Please help  
  
  
Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) when it comes before you on January 13 and 15. The City of Phoenix first needs to 
enforce their ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action 
has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter. 
  
The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and community from 
providing a blank check for a high densitydevelopment that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
  
Leah Wilson 
 
15601 S 1st Ave 
Phoenix, AZ 
 
 
Sent from my iPad

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7
From: Heather Lott <hlott1@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:27 PM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton ‐ Z‐165‐06‐7 
 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2.  I respectfully request that you deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐
1‐19) as filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the subject property 
and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the Planning Department.  Due to the 
site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, 
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes 
Stipulation 19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council 
approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of this stipulation, 
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”.  City Council approval was 
on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 as of 2011.  To date there has been no 
development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.  
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce 
these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In addition, the City 
should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the 
reverted S‐1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 
2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008. 
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple 
stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of 
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City Planning professionals and included, 
reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check 
for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify 
the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 
zoning. 
  
Sincerely, 
 
Heather Lott 
11610 S. 43rd Ave 
Laveen, AZ  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) 
Attachments:
DSC_8431.jpg
From: Sofia Mastikhina  
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:23 AM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Danielle M Jordan <danielle.jordan@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)  
 
Get Outlook for iOS 
From: Bryan Peltzer <bpeltzer@pgg‐eng.com> 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:58:40 PM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor 
Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)  
  
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,  
  
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before the Planning Commission on April 2 for several 
reasons. They are as follows: 
  
  
 
The City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to 
S‐1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and 
is a serious matter. According to City Zoning Code 506 B.1, the City of Phoenix has a duty and obligation to 
initiate a hearing on the reversion of the zoning. 
 
The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors 
and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. The area 
along Carver Road between 27th and 51st Avenues is very rural and comprised almost entirely of 1‐acre lots. As 
such there is a significant amount of room between homes and the area is relatively dark at night. An attached 
photograph depicts the area just after twilight. Approval of zoning that would allow much denser development 
would create an eyesore in the community and ruin the ambiance that has developed natural should not be 
encouraged. 
 
Due to the outbreak of Covid‐19, attendance at city meetings, hearings, etc. has been severely curtailed and 
possibly eliminated entirely with Gov. Ducey’s executive orders today (March 30, 2020). These restrictions 
undermine the ability of concerned residents to voice (and display with their attendance numbers) their 
displeasure with the proposed zoning changes. Going ahead with such hearings should give reasonable people 
concern regarding the legitimacy of such actions. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Bryan Peltzer 
3725 W. Fox Road 
Laveen, Arizona 85339

2

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: 35th Avenue & Carver Proposed Building Project
From: Kingston, Suzanne <suzanne.kingston@supportivecaremedgroup.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:52:26 AM 
To: Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; 
Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: 35th Avenue & Carver Proposed Building Project  
  
March 31, 2020  
  
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
  
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2.  I respectfully request that you deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as 
filed. 
  
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the subject property and of the 
rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-7, on file with the Planning Department.  Due to the site’s specific physical 
conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in 
the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19. 
  
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval of this 
change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with 
the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48-month 
timing, the zoning was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to 
revert the zoning as required.  
  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce these requirements to 
execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the entire property. In addition, the City should also execute a companion General 
Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 du/a to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with 
Resolution 20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008. 
  
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple stipulation modifications 
and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious 
matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation 
protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
  
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required 
zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
  
Sincerely, 
  
Suzanne Kingston 
11820 S. 38th Avenue 
Laveen, AZ  85339 
  
SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which 
they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under 
applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). If you are not the intended recipient, or the 
employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying 
to this message AND deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do 
not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to 
receive further e-mail from the sender.

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sofia Mastikhina
Sent:
Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:37 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject:
Fwd: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19), April 2nd, 2020, 6:00 pm, Deny Re-Zoning Request
 
Get Outlook for iOS 
From: Chris Luley <clluley@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:32:31 AM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha 
Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council 
District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19), April 2nd, 2020, 6:00 pm, Deny Re‐Zoning Request  
  
Good Morning Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management & Staff,  
 
I am a resident on Carver Road in Laveen and our property is adjacent to Carver Mountain. 
My wife and I have been made aware of the Re‐Zoning request that you have received and are considering.  Please let it 
be known that we are opposed to this rezoning request. 
I am requesting you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before you on April 2nd, The City of 
Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 
(one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance 
and is a serious matter. The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which 
has protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density 
development that does not fit the area. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as 
filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action 
to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
[google.com]  
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter, 
 
Christopher & Amy Luley 
4030 West Carver Road 
Laveen, Arizona (85339)

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: CASE Z-165-06
From: Janet Morris <janetmorriscpa@gmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 12:14 PM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Mayor 
Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina 
<sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: RE: CASE Z‐165‐06 
Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff, 
Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2.  I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. 
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies:  “The specific nature of the 
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the 
Planning Department.  Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this 
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the
City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19. 
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City 
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of 
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on 
site.”.  City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing,  the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 
as of 2011.  To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning 
as required.  
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to 
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In 
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning.  Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008. 
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting 
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19.  Deleting this stipulation is a 
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong.  It was written by City 
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council.  This stipulation protected the 
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. 
Do the required and right thing.  Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
Janet Morris 
3624 W. Bohl Street 
Laveen, AZ  85339 
602.561.9939

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2020 5:41 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Cc:
Steven Dougherty
Subject:
Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7 
 
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff  
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and 
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact 
as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also 
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Steven Dougherty 
11222 S 39th LN 
Laveen AZ 85339 
 
 
 
 
Sincerely, 
Steven Dougherty 
Steven@StevenDougherty.com 
480‐430‐6130 Cell 
 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to 
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a 
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play 
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in 
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  If you have received this transmission in error, 
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its 
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner.

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
D M <darcy3535@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 21, 2020 8:29 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Council 
District 7 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 Do the right thing!
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you DENY Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces

2
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
Darcy Meyer 
3535 W Bohl St 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Ol' West <davidinlaveen@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 21, 2020 8:35 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Council 
District 7 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 Do the right thing!
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you DENY Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces

2
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
David J. Meyer 
3535 W Bohl St 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Chris <chris@candssweeping.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:07 AM
To:
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Subject:
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff  
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and 
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact 
as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also 
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

2
 
Christine A. Danielson 
2943 W. Ceton Dr. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Cyd Manning <SweetBeat@q.com>
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:23 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Cc:
catherine@mirandaforhouse.com
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed 
Importance:
High
Forwarding the below to you as requested. 
 
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Miranda For House [mailto:catherine@mirandaforhouse.com]  
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:33 AM 
To: Cyd Manning 
Cc: Dan Penton 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed  
 
Cyd, 
 
Can you please forward this letter to appropriate leaders? Thank you for all you are doing!  
 
  
Planning Commission Members,   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.    
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:    
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.  
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is 
complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large

2
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above   
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.    
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.    
 
Catherine Miranda 
5412 W. Ellis Dr.  
Laveen, Az 85339 
480‐284‐2690

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
cynthiarojas@cox.net
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:43 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this 
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no 
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
 
Cynthia Rojas 
1819 W. Desert View Drive 
Phoenix AZ 85041 
602‐626‐7102

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
E douglas <lizesd@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:07 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I would like to preface the below letter with some personal observations.  
 
How many of you have driven to this area?  Before making a decision take advantage of cheap gas and less traffic and 
come on down and drive from 51st Avenue across Carver to 35th Avenue.  See the area on the ground, instead of relying 
on aerial photography.  
 
When I moved to Laveen in 2000 all the nearby fields were zoned for one acre housing but were developed with four to 
six houses per acre.  The city (and county) does not address the needed improvements to infrastructure, police/sheriff 
presence, fire department capability, surface streets, river crossings, schools, etc.  Every month or two the newspaper 
runs an alarming article about water in the desert and yet you continue to approve high density developments 
throughout the city.   I am dreading whatever ends up on the west side of 51st Avenue south of Olney.  
 
With the above in mind:   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

2
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
Elizabeth Douglas 
4726 West Olney Avenue 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
KIM Domovich <rwvblkwatch@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:31 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC; Joshua Bednarek
Subject:
PLEASE Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
 
 
Planning Commission Members,  
We request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
1. We are adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, 
my neighbors and we stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows 
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella 
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and 
can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept 
any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: We request our names and address be added to these notification stipulations so we will be 
formally notified of any future actions.  
3. We are supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

2
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
Respectfully, 
Kim and Mike Domovich 
5218 West Sunland Ave 
Laveen AZ 85339 
[nextdoor.com]

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sarah VanSchyndel <sarah.vanschyndel@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:48 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Samantha Keating; Joshua Bednarek; Mayor Gallego; 
Council District 8 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council 
District 4; Council District 3 PCC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members,   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.    
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:    
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above   
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.    
 
Sarah Johns 
3913 W Carver Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
eddd2@aol.com
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:19 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this 
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no 
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
Tina Banks 
4334 W Apollo Rd  
Laveen AZ  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Vance <vancevep@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:53 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
 
Planning Commission Members,   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.    
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:    
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above   
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.    
 
Vance Pierce 
8216 S 42nd Ave 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
brian hicks <handymanhicks@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 27, 2020 10:53 AM
To:
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Cc:
sweetbeat@q.com
Subject:
Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
Brian Hicks 
4715 W Carver Rd 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Brian & Karie <carvercottage2018@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 27, 2020 10:51 AM
To:
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Cc:
Cyd Manning
Subject:
Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
Karie Hicks 
4715 W Carver Rd 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Lara Andren <cheesethepit@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 27, 2020 9:39 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; Samantha 
Keating; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; council.district.6@phoenix.org; Council District 7 
PCC; Mayor Gallego; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 8 PCC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members,   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:    
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above  
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.   
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.    
 
CASSIE SAWYER

2
 
3621 W BOHL STREET 
LAVEEN, AZ. 85339 
 
ADDRESS — with Brent Bialik and 15 others at Laveen, Arizona.

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
From: Lara Andren <cheesethepit@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 9:43 AM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; council.district.6@phoenix.org; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council 
District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Fwd: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
 
Planning Commission Members,   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:    
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.  Instead it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors 
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original follows site 
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South 
Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the elevation 
difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the 
higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom 
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be 
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that 
could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of 
any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above  
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.   
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.   
 
Lara Andren 
3621 W BOHL STREET 
LAVEEN, AZ. 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
lvializ@cox.net
Sent:
Monday, April 27, 2020 11:32 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) As Filed
Importance:
High
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7th, 
2020.  Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until 
after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐
1.  The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has taken no action, despite 
NUMEROUS requests, which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations: 
      Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion 
stipulation should NOT be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate 
Planning Commission  action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is 
complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the 
area, with the applicant. 
      Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current 
applicant’s proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother 
connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella 
Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act 
on the zoning reversion. 
      Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east 
property line should remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue 
(lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better 
buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 
200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion. 
     Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with

2
compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any 
debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation 
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification 
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted 
above. 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 
2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation SPECIFICALLY to protect the neighbors 
and community from a high density development that DID NOT fit the area then and DOES 
NOT fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to 
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Thank you,  
Ivan Vializ 
8921 S 53rd Dr. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Rob <rockmano@aol.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 27, 2020 6:01 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
•        Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):  This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
•        Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
•        Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
•        Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above  
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
Robert Olson

2
2809 and 2821 W. Avion Way 
Laveen, AZ  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
chris johns <christopher.1.johns@outlook.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:47 PM
To:
Alan Stephenson; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; Mayor Gallego; 
Council District 8 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council 
District 4; Council District 3 PCC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members,   
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.    
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:    
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above   
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.    
 
Chris Johns 
3913 W Carver Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Mike <luzader13@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:58 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this 
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no 
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
Michael Luzader 
9446 S 34th Ln, Laveen

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Sylvia Cox <pugmobile.sly@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:56 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Hello City of Phoenix Planning Commission, 
As a 21‐year resident of Laveen, I am highly opposed to any more high‐density development in our area.  Sadly, much of 
Laveen now looks like most of Phoenix.  The rural feel and space that make our village so special are rapidly being 
destroyed.  We have precious few opportunities left to preserve larger lots and open spaces.  I beg of you, please work 
to preserve some of our rural feel by not approving more high‐density development!  Please adhere to the General Plan; 
once these spaces are developed, they will be gone forever.  I am sure developers will still be able to make money, as 
the less‐densely developed areas will be highly coveted by buyers who want some space between themselves and their 
neighbors. 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this 
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no 
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations:  
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain 
intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
Please do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

2
Respectfully, 
Sylvia Cox 
4601 W. Crivello Ave. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
alexis cherie <alexischerie@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:29 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. 
I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion. 
2. 
Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. 
I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Alexis Barnes 
4323 W Piedmont Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
From: Andrea Sigala <andrea_sigala@yahoo.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 5:34 PM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC <council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego 
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating 
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.  Instead it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors 
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original follows site 
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South 
Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the elevation 
difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the 
higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding large acre plus parcels with custom 
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be 
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that 
could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of 
any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
Andrea N. Sigala 
4315 West Carver Road, Laveen AZ 85339 
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
B F <benjamin_fisher@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:55 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Importance:
High
Dear Planning Commission Members: 
 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to 
this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, 
G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has 
taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations: 
 
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. 
Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the 
area, with the applicant.  
 
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and 
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact 
as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. 
Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 
feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide 
better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot 
minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide 
safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced 
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will 
be formally notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

2
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Respectfully yours, 
 
Benjamin W. Fisher 
4745 W. Piedmont Drive 
Laveen, AZ 85339-9644 
602.617.6143 – Cell 
benjamin_fisher@hotmail.com

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
From: Janet Morris <janetmorriscpa@gmail.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:03 PM 
To: Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council 
District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC <council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC 
<District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: RE: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
 
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you 
on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of 
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 
and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In 
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • 
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • 
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced 
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name 
and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am 
supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion 
stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation 
specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then 
and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then 
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. JANET D MORRIS 
3624 W BOHL STREET 
LAVEEN, AZ  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Jessie McKinley <jessiemckinley602@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 2020 6:45 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed...
Dear Planning Commission Members: 
  
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to 
this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, 
G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has 
taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1.      I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations: 
  
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted. Instead, it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits 
the area, with the applicant. 
  
         Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. 
The original follows site contours, provides a smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and 
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact 
as you act on the zoning reversion. 
  
         Stipulation 10: The 200-foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west 
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well 
as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200-
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
  
         Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide 
safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced 
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2
2.      Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I 
will be formally notified of any future actions. 
  
3.      I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above. 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high-density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve, and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
  
Respectfully yours, 
 
Jessie L. McKinley 
4745 W. Piedmont Drive 
Laveen, AZ  85339 
480-648-5269 
jessiemckinley602@gmail.com 
 
‐‐  
 
"Dance, like no one is watching..."

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed 
From: Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:42 PM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Steven Dougherty <steven@stevendougherty.com>; Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 
PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 
<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC <council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC 
<District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC <council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC 
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed  
 
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 
7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces 
ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has 
taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In regards to the Planning Hearing 
Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 
(zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate 
Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to 
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared 
to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion 
to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line 
should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet 
provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain 
intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also 
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation 
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be 
added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s 
recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance 
G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the 
neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Steven Dougherty 
11222 S 39th LN 
Laveen AZ 85339 
 
Sincerely, 
Steven Dougherty 
Steven@StevenDougherty.com 
480‐430‐6130 Cell 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential 
or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you 
must not read or play this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this 
transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete 
the original transmission and its attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner.

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Susan Quintana <s.quintana888@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:00 AM
To:
Alan Stephenson; Council District 6 PCC; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Joshua Bednarek; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Samantha Keating
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. 
I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion. 
2. 
Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. 
I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Susan Quintana 
5217 W Grenadine Rd 
Laveen, AZ 85339.

2
‐‐  
Susan Quintana

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
R B <kroywen@icloud.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:37 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
ESCALATE - Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed 
Good afternoon, below is a copy‐paste of the same topic for which your office must have already received lots of 
inquiries from us Laveen residents.  
Frankly, we as your constituents and fellow residents shouldn’t have to be doing this over and over again ‐ we 
already asked you to STOP these developers from building in our community.  
 
Yet you continue to allow these developers to move ahead. You are not acting in the best interest of the people you  are 
supposed to help and protect ‐ us residents.  
 
You  continue to act in the interest of well‐funded developers and that’s not right.  
 
Why do we need to keep begging you to do the right thing and make them stop? 
Why do we need to keep having meetings and do letter writing campaigns about this?  
We already said NO.  
Then we said NO again.  
 
We do not want this developer or any other developer to build in our area at this density level. We made this clear. 
Then we made it clear again. 
 
Now we are ‐ once again ‐ making it clear.  
 
So please, add this email to your growing list of pleas to stop this development. We. Do. Not. Want. It.  
 
Thank you 
 
‐Cenk Brown 
7259 S. 48TH GLN 
Laveen, Arizona 85339 
 
—————————————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. 
I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

2
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion. 
2. 
Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. 
I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Cenk Brown 
7259 S. 48TH GLN 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Donna Snow <carart617@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:19 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed 
Planning Commission Members,  
 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on 
May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered 
until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning 
revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no 
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion 
stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with 
immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better 
plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current 
applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother 
connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact 
as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east 
property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue 
(lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with 
custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain 
intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated

2
with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to 
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced 
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these 
notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.  
 
2. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not 
noted above, 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be 
deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to 
protect                    the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then 
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning 
reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Sincerely,  
 
Donna Snow 
6806 W. Desert Lane 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Jody Monreal <mskitty1212@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:40 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 
PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council 
District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
 
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this 
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no 
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of 
the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due 
to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Jody R Monreal 5327 W Allen Street Laveen, AZ 85339

Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
 
Planning Commission Members,  
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any 
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of 
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current 
zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City 
Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation 
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission 
action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to 
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 
portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The 
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west 
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story 
product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with 
custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on 
the zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These 
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper 
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion.  
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification 
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.  
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, 
the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and 
community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the 
area today.  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to 
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
LAURA A MURPHY 
4824 W ESTRELLA DR 
LAVEEN, AZ  85339

Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
 
Planning Commission Members,  
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any 
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of 
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current 
zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City 
Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation 
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission 
action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to 
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 
portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The 
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west 
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story 
product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with 
custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on 
the zoning reversion.  
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These 
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper 
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion.  
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification 
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.  
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, 
the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and 
community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the 
area today.  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to 
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
LISA K PIKE 
4824 W ESTRELLA DR 
LAVEEN, AZ  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
M A <mavina480@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:27 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council 
District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; Joshua Bednarek; 
Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you 
on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of 
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 
and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In 
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • 
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • 
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced 
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name 
and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am 
supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion 
stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation 
specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then 
and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then 
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. Mindy Avina 3522 W Bohl St, Laveen 
Village, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed.
From: Moises Quintana <Moises.Quintana@hotmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 11:46 AM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego 
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating 
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
•         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.  Instead it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors 
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
•         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original follows site 
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South 
Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to the elevation 
difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the 
higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom 
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
•         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be 
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that 
could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of 
any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Moises Quintana 
5217 W Grenadine Rd 
Laveen, AZ 85339 
 
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Please deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Randy Holmes <holmes1512@gmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:30 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia 
Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Please deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views 
of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due 
to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a 
much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Randy L Holmes 
10909 S. 29th Ave 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
ROB HARGREAVES <b737rob@msn.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2020 3:02 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Subject:
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) 
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff  
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to 
this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces 
ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the 
City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion 
stipulation should not be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning 
Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I 
stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 
portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The 
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line 
should remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to 
the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐
story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels 
with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act 
on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These 
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper 
slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations 
so I will be formally notified of any future actions.

2
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Robert Hargreaves 
3102 W Ceton Dr. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Kristofic, Stephanie L. <Stephanie.Kristofic@va.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:11 PM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Warm regards,  
 
Stephanie Kristofic 10826 s 30th Ave Laveen 
Stephanie Kristofic BSN, RN, CDCES 
Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist 
Department of Endocrinology 
Phoenix VA Health Care System 
Phone: 602‐277‐5551 Ext 7081 
Fax: 602‐200‐6034 
Email: stephanie.kristofic@va.gov

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Swati Joshi <sjoshi1729@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:57 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you 
on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of 
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 
and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In 
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion 
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • 
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • 
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced 
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name 
and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am 
supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion 
stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation 
specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then 
and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then 
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. Swati Joshi 
8539 S. 40th Drive 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7
From: Anne McKinney <volnay@gmail.com>  
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 1:33 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia 
Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson 
<alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton ‐ Z‐165‐06‐7 
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by the 
applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. 
The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very 
serious matter. 
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
 
1. 
I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of 
the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding 
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as 
you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop 
zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain 
intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
 
2. 
Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
 
3. 
I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above. 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the 
area then and does not fit the area today.   
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Anne McKinney 
10827 S 30th Ave 
Laveen AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) 
From: Bernadette Buehlmann <bernadettebuehlmann@gmail.com>  
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 5:03 PM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)  
 
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff  
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Thank you, 
 
Bernadette Buehlmann, Laveen

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
RK <7359.apps@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2020 6:40 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members,  
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, 
my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows 
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella 
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and 
can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept 
any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above. 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
PLEASE do the required and right thing.  
 
Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning 
reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
 
Kavi Raj,  
 
4309 W Buist Ave, Laveen, 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Kim Kissel <k.kissel@comcast.net>
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2020 2:11 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as Filed
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action, which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1.  I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
 
Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once 
the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
 
Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of 
the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
 
Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a 
much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
 
Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment 
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones 
to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain 
intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2.  Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
 
3.  I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
I pray you, your families and colleagues are staying safe and healthy during this new season in our lives.  
 
 
God Bless, 
Kimberly Kissel 
June Skies 
5124 W Lydia Ln 
Laveen AZ 85339 
 
“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.” Heb 3:4

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Matt Klein <mattklein999@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2020 4:51 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on 
May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix 
enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the 
City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In regards to the Planning 
Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of original 
Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is 
with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I 
stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior 
quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to 
the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan 
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback 
along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace 
to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum 
landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms 
should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated 
with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the 
upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 
43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any 
future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the 
zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included 
this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the 
area then and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then 
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the 
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. Matt Klein 
9812 S 46th Ln 
Laveen, AZ

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
drmelissaprice@aol.com
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2020 3:08 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Dear Planning Commission Members,  
My neighbors all throughout the Laveen region and I feel that the following is so important. We are untied in the 
following statement because this is where we live. Personally, I have watched Laveen grow, in some ways for 
the better and some for the worse. Allowing the following four stipulations would clearly fall in the latter 
category.  
As such, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any 
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix 
enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to 
date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In 
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 
stipulation: • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. 
Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with 
the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and 
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east 
property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the 
west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well 
as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot 
minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The 
terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be further 
stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any 
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on 
the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification 
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for 
the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 
should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the 
neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the 
area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to 
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-
1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Sincerely, 
 
Dr. Melissa Price 
5333 W. Ian Dr. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
RK K <cars7359@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2020 6:43 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members,  
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:  
 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, 
my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.  
 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows 
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella 
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.  
 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and 
can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept 
any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion.  
 
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions.  
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above. 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

2
PLEASE do the required and right thing.  
 
Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning 
reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
 
Rohini Kun,  
 
4309 W Buist Ave, Laveen, 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Cyd Manning <SweetBeat@q.com>
Sent:
Saturday, May 2, 2020 4:01 PM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen 
VPC
Subject:
Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) at May 7 Planning Commission
Importance:
High
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which 
requires the zoning to revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is 
in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
 
In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high 
density development that was incompatible with the area then and remains incompatible today.    The inaction since the 
time stipulation expired in 2011 has  wronged the community of Laveen as we expected the zoning reversion to 
occur.  The City needs and should want to do the right thing.  This Commission and Council have the obligation, duty and 
authority to act and honor the zoning reversion.   
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The 
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and 
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact 
as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also 
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.

2
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
 
Sincerely, 
 
Cyd Manning 
3220 W. Ceton Drive 
sweetbeat@q.com

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
EMAIL TEAM <garyinlaveen@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Saturday, May 2, 2020 10:36 AM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; council.distict.2@phoenix.gov; coucil.district.3@phoenix.gov; Council District 
4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; 
laveenpc@phoenix.gov; Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua 
Bednarek; Samantha Keating
Subject:
Quarry Case Z-165-06-7  (PHO-1-19)_1-15-20PHO.PDF
Hello All, 
I request you deny the Case # above. And I am opposed to Stipulations 1, 10, 19, 35, 43 and 44. 
Please take into consideration our Community life style when making your decision-we would like to keep 
it semi-rural. 
Sincerly,  
Gary Jordan 
3603 W. Shawnee Dr. 
Laveen, Az 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
C Gunderson <carrsgun@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, May 3, 2020 8:36 PM
To:
Alan Stephenson; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it 
comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be 
considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning 
revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which 
is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In regards to the Planning Hearing 
Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of 
original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. 
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. 
Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits 
the area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to 
the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother 
connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and 
South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • 
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west 
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, 
as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom 
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent 
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible 
colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from 
the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these 
notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of 
PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning 
reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high 
density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. Do the 
required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General 
Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
Regards, 
 
Carolyn Gunderson 
3514 W Cheyenne Dr. 
Laveen, AZ85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Deirdre Sparling <dspard@icloud.com>
Sent:
Sunday, May 3, 2020 7:59 AM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha 
Keating
Subject:
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
 To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
 
 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions 
to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces 
ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to 
date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion 
stipulation should not be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate 
Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my 
neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current 
applicant’s proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection 
to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and 
South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line 
should remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing 
terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher 
density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the 
large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback 
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of 
the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible 
colors.  These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could 
fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification 
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

2
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the 
Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a 
high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Deirdre Sparling 
9819 S. 20th Ave 
Phoenix, 85041

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Donna Schober <donna.schober@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:27 AM
To:
Council District 8 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Alan Stephenson; Council District 4; Council District 7 
PCC; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council 
District 6 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Samantha Keating
Subject:
CASE Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
Planning Commission Members, 
We request that you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any 
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City enforces 
ordinance G‐5020 which requires that the zoning revert to S‐1.  The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date 
the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
 
With regard to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations we are opposed to these four 
stipulations: 
 
Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion).   
 
Stipulation 1:  The original plan is far superior to the applicant's current proposal.  The original plan suits site 
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella 
Mountains and South Mountain. 
 
Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  This 
will serve as a needed buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story buildings and provide better buffering 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. 
 
Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  This will help stabilize the slopes. 
 
Stipulations 43 and 44:  Please add our names to the notification stipulations so we will be notified of any 
future actions. 
 
We support the PHO's recommendations for the remaining stipulations NOT noted above. 
 
We have lived in Laveen, close to this land, for over 20 years. This is an area where large lots and custom 
homes live.  Where homeowners and others take advantage of the mountain views and wide open spaces. 
 
Please do the right thing.  Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed.  Don't break faith and trust with the 
residents of this community. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Donna J. Schober 
Marvin A. Sondag 
10840 S 30th Ave 
Laveen, AZ  85339

2
602.237.4887

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Elizabeth Banta <ebanta3938@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:28 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
Denial strongly requested for Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I am a member of the area greatly and negatively affected by  Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19). So much of  Greater Phoenix 
contains high density, cookie‐cutter communities. Please preserve a unique jewel in our Valley by denying Case Z‐165‐06 
(PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not
be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The 
current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces

2
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
Sincerely, 
Elizabeth K Banta 
3938 W Kayenta Trail 
Laveen, AZ 85339 
480‐353‐6019

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Jamie Gunderson <jamiegun@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, May 3, 2020 8:23 PM
To:
Alan Stephenson; Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject:
Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before 
you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City 
of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 
2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious 
matter. In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to 
these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation 
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the 
area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current 
applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to 
the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain 
intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the 
east property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to 
the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as 
well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot 
minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The 
terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be further 
stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any 
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on 
the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification 
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for 
the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 
should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the 
neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the 
area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to 
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-
1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.  
 
 
Regards,  
 
 
Jamie Gunderson 
3514 W Cheyenne Drive 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Oppose case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Nicole Glasgow <nicole.glasgow821@gmail.com>  
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 2:19 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia 
Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Oppose case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35thAvenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Nicole Glasgow 
3717 west Carver Rd  
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Paul Banta <pwbantaz@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:53 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
Request to deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff 
  
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I live near the area addressed by Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19).  I understand that a development company can make more 
money by getting a low density property re‐zoned to high density; but that alone does not seem like a sufficient reason 
to allow the change.  And, if this property is so easily re‐zoned, how will you be able to deny the owners of the other 
properties in the area?  This location does not have the roads to support high density development.  There is lots of 
vacant land between this location and central Phoenix.  Please fill that up first.  Better, revitalize some of the decayed 
and run‐down areas instead of just going farther out.   
 
Please deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested 
by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the 
zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of 
City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not 
be deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the 
zoning.  Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that 
fits the area, with the applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal.  The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the 
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain.  Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as 
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces 
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original 
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be 
formally notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did 
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S‐1 zoning. 
  
Sincerely, 
Paul W Banta 
3938 W Kayenta Trail 
Laveen, AZ 85339 
480‐353‐6014

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Oppose case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Nicole Glasgow <blue_eyes821@aol.com>  
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 5:32 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia 
Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek 
<joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating <samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Oppose case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
  
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
  
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35thAvenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Thomas Glasgow 
3717 west Carver Rd  
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
David Baker <david@beinphoenix.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 4, 2020 11:02 AM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Alan Stephenson; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; 
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen 
VPC
Cc:
David Baker
Subject:
Item 10 - PHO -1-19-Z-165--06-7(8)
Hello Folks, 
 
Quick, simple note.  Regarding the above mentioned development.   
 
Myself, my wife, my kids and all our neighbors over here in the Sunset Cove and Carver Foothill area, DO NOT want this 
higher density development.  Please do the right thing, keep the zoning at R‐43, which is the plan for the area.  It is a 
rural, horse property/acreage area……….not a developed area.   
 
Thank you, 
 
David Baker 
Keller Williams Realty Phoenix 
Cell:602.373.6345 
E‐mail: david@beinPhoenix.com  
Visit my websites at 
http://www.PhoenixLaveenHomes.com [phoenixlaveenhomes.com] 
http://www.LaveenRealEstate.co [laveenrealestate.co] 
http://www.LaveenAz85339.com [laveenaz85339.com] 
http://www.CasasLaveen.com [casaslaveen.com] 
http://www.Laveenhomesforsale.net [laveenhomesforsale.net] 
  
Subscribe today to my YOUTUBE Channel 
 https://www.youtube.com/user/dabaker2121 [youtube.com] 
"Like" me on Facebook at Phoenix Residential Real Estate [facebook.com]

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Case Z-165-06
From: gjnorton0744@gmail.com <gjnorton0744@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:33 AM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 
 
To:  Planning Commission Members 
Cc:  Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers,  Planning Management and Staff  
  
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this case requested by 
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert 
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a 
very serious matter.  
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:  
 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
         Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion):   This zoning reversion stipulation should not be 
deleted.  Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.  Once the 
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the 
applicant. 
         Stipulation 1:  The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.  The original 
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the 
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain.  The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
         Stipulation 10:  The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.  Due to 
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much 
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the 
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
         Stipulation 35:  The terraced berms should remain.  They reduce the apparent height of the exposed 
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors.  These terraces also provide safety 
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes.  The original terraced stipulation should 
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44:  I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
  
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.  In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and 
does not fit the area today.  
  
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the 
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.  
  
Gloria Norton 
10823 S 29 Ave 
Laveen, Az  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Linda Abegg <linda.abegg@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 4, 2020 11:42 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating
Subject:
Laveen Case
Good Morning, 
I am a Laveen resident and member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee. I ask that this case be denied and that 
the reversion stipulation be maintained. 
 
We always talk about having a balance in Laveen housing. This area is at Carver Rd is one of the few rural, low density 
areas left. It deserves to keep its character, especially considering all the high density already approved in Laveen. 
 
Furthermore, the community has done its part to participate in the public hearing process. The original compromise with 
the reversion stipulation should be honored. 
Thank you, 
 
Linda Abegg 
5407 W Winston Dr

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Request to deny case Z-165-06 PHO-1-19 as filed
From: Margaret Anderson <mhanderson007@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 3:05 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; 
Council District 3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council 
District 5 PCC <council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC 
<laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego <mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar 
<racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson 
<alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating 
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Request to deny case Z‐165‐06 PHO‐1‐19 as filed

2

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: All Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:43 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego 
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; 
Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating 
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; laveenpvc@phoenix.gov 
Subject: All Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
 
I, along with my Laveen neighbors request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any 
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, 
which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
 
1). I am adamantly opposed to these four stipulations: 
        • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead, it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors 
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
        • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant's proposal. The original follows site 
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South 
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
        • Stipulation 10 : The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation 
difference at 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher 
density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 
200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
        • Stipulation 35 : The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be 
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept and debris that could 
fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
 
2). Stipulation 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of 
any future actions. 
 
3). I am supportive of PHO's recommendations for the remaining stipulations NOT noted above. 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from high density development that did not fit the area then, and does 
not fit the area today. 
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify 
the required zoning reversions action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 
zoning. 
 
Sincerely, 
Bret Burchard 
11244 S. 35th Ave. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed
From: Irma Cazarez <irmacazarez@gmail.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:26 PM 
To: Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov> 
Cc: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego 
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating 
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov> 
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case 
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which 
requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: 
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead, it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my 
neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows 
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella 
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the 
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better 
buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large 
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the 
zoning reversion. 
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can 
be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any 
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally 
notified of any future actions. 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council 
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not 
fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and 
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open 
Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
Thank you, 
Irma Cazarez 
3517 W Shawnee Drive, Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Judy Brown <DT_Jbrown@q.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:28 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen 
VPC
Cc:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject:
Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) 
Importance:
High
Greetings all: 
 
I please request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7.  Any revisions to this 
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, 
which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action 
which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance.  
 
This case should have been a done deal in 2011, with a reversion back to S‐1. I have heard all of the stories why the City 
hasn’t done reversions. Since 2011, twelve times the reversion process has been brought up in LVPC Minutes. At least 
one time this case number was mentioned in the minutes prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The 
stories vary in how the City of Phoenix refuses to do their job. It is a little hard to grasp a $26,000,000 surplus in last 
year’s budget and yet, no additional staff can be found to correct the wrongs on old zoning cases still sitting out there.  
 
I’m not opposed to development. There is a time and place for everything. Honesty, integrity and fair business dealings 
are core values I was brought up on. I personally don’t have the resources to fight the legalese or City for compliance 
with the law. As I see it, he with the most money or threats wins. That is just not right.  
 
I have been involved in this case since day one when the original owner bought a piece of property for way too much 
money. With the help of Councilman Lingner and a prestigious law firm, the owner proceeded to cram a concept down 
the throats of residents in our community to make a buck. He was in way over his head on expenses and by trumping up 
the condition of the property and the costs associated with making it buildable; the foundation was formed for the 
argument that higher density was warranted. The original owner spent over 5 million for the red herring and the 
community knew he was going to flip. 
 
We went through that process in 2007. A deal was brokered with Mayor Gordan to protect the community if building did 
not occur within 48 months. That is the stipulation #19 – Reversion of the zoning back to S‐1. This way the new owner 
would have a clean slate to work with the neighborhood. Stipulation #19, #10, #35, #43, #44 at the very least should be 
kept in the PHO’s recent ruling.  
 
The new owner is not a developer and bought the property cheap, $18, 333 per acre or $ .42 psf. That is a total of 
$366,660 for the twenty acres in this discussion. The Rose Law Group tried the story of blight, dangerous ordinance, 
threating Prop. 207, and submitting an off the shelf inferior flatland building envelop community that just doesn’t fit 
with the surroundings. It is aesthetically unappealing and is not the right fit for our community, the proposed planned 
unit community, or the original  General Plan.   
 
I am a minority, not papered with degrees or pedigree. I am a simple resident of this community that I love. We are a 
diverse community with different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, and orientations. What makes this area of 
Laveen special are the people that live here. We respect each other and our surroundings.  We respect the wildlife, open

2
spaces, and equestrian lifestyle. Twenty years ago I uprooted from Tempe to live under the crown jewel of South 
Mountain. What is being proposed on the above mentioned property is a disservice to current and future residents with 
regards to density.  
 
Trust me, I’m no Karen, this is just wrong. We need to work together to do the right thing for the community. Please 
deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed on May 7, 2020 and execute the zoning reversion. 
 
Kind regards, 
 
Judy Brown 
602.363.1312 
3220 W. Ceton Drive 
Laveen, AZ  85339

1
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
FW: Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
From: Tayler Bell <taylerbell691@yahoo.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:25 PM 
To: Council District 1 PCC <council.district.1@phoenix.gov>; Council District 2 PCC <council.district.2@phoenix.gov>; Council District 
3 PCC <council.district.3@phoenix.gov>; Council District 4 <council.district.4@phoenix.gov>; Council District 5 PCC 
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>; Council District 6 PCC <District6@phoenix.gov>; Council District 7 PCC 
<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>; Council District 8 PCC <council.district.8@phoenix.gov>; Mayor Gallego 
<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>; Racelle Escolar <racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov>; Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>; 
Alan Stephenson <alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov>; Joshua Bednarek <joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov>; Samantha Keating 
<samantha.keating@phoenix.gov>; PDD Laveen VPC <laveenvpc@phoenix.gov>; Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com> 
Subject: Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) 
 
Planning Commission Members, 
I, along with my Laveen neighbors request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any 
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, 
which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has taken no action which is in 
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. 
 
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
 
1). I am adamantly opposed to these four stipulations: 
        • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead, it 
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors 
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
        • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant's proposal. The original follows site 
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South 
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
        • Stipulation 10 : The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation 
difference at 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher 
density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 
200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
        • Stipulation 35 : The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be 
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept and debris that could 
fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
 
2). Stipulation 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of 
any future actions. 
 
3). I am supportive of PHO's recommendations for the remaining stipulations NOT noted above. 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this 
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from high density development that did not fit the area then, and does 
not fit the area today. 
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify 
the required zoning reversions action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 
zoning. 
 
Sincerely, 
Tayler Burchard 
11244 S. 35th Ave. 
Laveen, AZ 85339

Dear Planning Commission Members, 
 
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7, 2020. 
Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix 
enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and 
to date the City of Phoenix has taken no action which is in violation of city zoning ordinance, a profoundly 
serious matter. 
 
Regarding the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations: 
• 
Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation 
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission 
action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to 
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. 
 
• 
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s 
proposal. The original follows site contours provide smoother connection to the R1-18 
portion to the west and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The 
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 
 
• 
Stipulation 10: The 200-foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should 
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the 
west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story 
product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels 
with custom homes. The 200-foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you 
act on the zoning reversion. 
 
• 
Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the 
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These 
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper 
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning 
reversion. 
 
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I 
will be formally notified of any future actions. 
 
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above 
 
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and 
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high-density 
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. 
 
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, 
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Terry Klein 
4012 W. Carver Rd 
Laveen, AZ 85339

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Bret Burchard <bretburchard3@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 8, 2020 10:12 AM
To:
Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council 
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; 
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen 
VPC
Subject:
Follow Up to Council Meeting - May 7
Mr. Chair and Members, 
  
My name is Bret Burchard and I live at 11244 S 35th Ave in Laveen. I attended - virtually - last night’s 
meeting, specifically as it related to the development project on Carver mountain. First, I want to thank you for 
enduring the pains of hosting a meeting virtually. I know it wasn’t easy for you, but under the circumstances I 
was able to attend while sitting on the swing on my front porch, which has an unobstructed, picturesque view of 
the Phoenix skyline. While you all were diligently hearing all sides of every argument, I was watching the 
Super Moon rise over South Mountain. Not to rub it in :-)  
  
A year and a half ago my wife and I overpaid for a modified trailer as our first home because it had a 900-
square-foot front patio with panoramic views and no one encroaching on either side. The first thing any visitor 
does when arriving at our house is pull out their camera to take pictures.  
  
Part of our view looks directly at the east side of Carver Mountain, the highest density portion of the 
development in question. Like Mrs. Irma Cazarez mentioned in her comments during the meeting, this is a 
uniquely quiet area of Laveen Village, where neighbors take care of each other. During the meeting our dog was 
standing guard, chasing coyotes out of the front yard. As I tried to fall asleep last night I couldn’t get out of my 
head the idea of 92 houses crammed at the bottom of our hill. There aren't 92 houses within the eight walking 
blocks of our neighborhood! The current pandemic situation has substantially increased the amount of traffic up 
our dead end road since we moved in, already making it more dangerous for Irma’s kids to skateboard, the 
Schroeder’s kids to ride their scooters, Katherine’s grandkids to learn to ride a bike, Mackenzie to walk her five 
dogs, and G dog’s casual patrol of the nighttime wildlife. What will 92 more homes, three blocks away add on 
top of that? 
  
I specifically want to commend Commissioner Busching for taking the time to drive out here and see the area 
for herself. It is certainly unique. Even since we moved in 18 months ago there have been improvements made 
in the surrounding area with the extension of the 202, the Sprouts and adjacent shops, and high-density 
development projects. We are excited about all of it improving the quality of our life here. Commissioner 
Busching’s point of view is correct though. This is just not the place for one of those developments. Come see 
for yourself. 
  
I understand you sent the case back to the developer and the Laveen community for further discussion and 
compromise. I would like to caution you in your judgement process, however. There was a comment made in 
conjunction with the motion that suggested favor would be shown to the side that concedes the most in the next 
iteration of the proposal. Logically, that doesn’t make sense. Hypothetically, if we concede to all of the 
developer’s stipulations, does that mean you will support our opposition in the next meeting? Let me be clear, I 
am not speaking on behalf of the entire Laveen community. I just went to bed puzzled by this logic.

2
Secondly, and finally, I don’t believe one of the Commissioner’s questions was adequately addressed. He can 
correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he was asking if there was actually a 48-month trigger on a previous 
compromise that wasn’t honored. I believe it was Ms. Manning who made the Commission aware of this clause 
that should have automatically reverted the property back to previous zoning if it wasn’t developed within 48 
months of the agreement - which it wasn’t. I hope the Commission can clear up this misunderstanding amongst 
the members. It seems to me as the two parties work toward more compromises, the Commission needs to also 
review the documents and its scope of authority to help facilitate the correct course of action. There seemed to 
be a lot of confusion on what you were and were not able to enforce, or even what you were exactly voting on, 
and I don't believe the video conferencing setup assisted in clarity. 
  
I understand you are in a very difficult position. This is a tough case to decide. The difficulty of this should spur 
us on to more diligent study. My suggestion to you is come take a drive down 35th Ave. Feel free to stop by our 
porch (it's the one with the red roof) and take a look. G dog doesn’t bite and you can see the whole 
neighborhood from where we sit. And ask yourself, “Does it make sense? Does it fit?”  
  
Oh yeah, and don’t forget to bring your camera. 
  
 
Respectfully, 
  
Bret Burchard

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Cyd Manning <SweetBeat@q.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 11, 2020 7:43 PM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Cc:
Alan Stephenson; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject:
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2020 and  Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) Item 10
Importance:
High
Hi Racelle, 
Please provide this letter to the  Planning Commission members and Staff, as well as include it in the case file.  Thank 
you very much. 
 
Best regards, 
Cyd 
 
*** 
Planning Commission Members and Staff, 
I am writing to you today regarding the subject case heard during the May 7 Planning Commission meeting, specifically 
to provide feedback on the new virtual process, address a few issues and correct a factual error made by the applicant’s 
representative.  I respectfully request this correspondence be added to the official case file. 
 
Regarding feedback on the new virtual meeting process, I would like to first thank Racelle Escolar and Vikki Cipolla‐
Murillo for their excellent work coordinating all the participation and presentation details for public input.  They 
thoroughly and patiently answered questions, tested the system and ensured those without technology who wanted to 
speak were able to do so.  I would also like to thank Chairman Johnson for a job well done facilitating the session.  The 
meeting wasn’t without challenges, but ran pretty smoothly for the first virtual Planning Commission meeting.  
 
Commissioner Gaynor  expressed dissatisfaction with submission of written comments into the chat window of the 
WebEx meeting.  I want to be clear that I intended no disrespect to the Commission or disruption to the process and I 
apologize if that action offended anyone.  I absolutely respect the public hearing process and rules of order.  I believe 
that a factual error is an appropriate reason to raise a hand in order to be called upon.  Thus,  I utilized the raise hand 
feature to correct a factual error made by Mr. Galvin and waited several minutes to be called upon.  After waiting, I 
submitted the written request and ultimately provided the correction so it would become part of the record.  Please 
reference the below screen capture.   I have firsthand knowledge that the applicant did not agree to a request by 
Councilmember Garcia to meet with the neighbors regarding this case. 
 
There are two issues of great concern that occurred during the meeting: 
1. With all due respect, the Commission’s request of the applicant’s representative, Mr. Galvin,  to provide an 
answer regarding the Commission’s authority on zoning reversions may have the appearance of bias. 
 Staff clearly advised the Commission and stated that zoning reversion would be a separate action to 
initiate a case to be heard as an upcoming agenda item due to posting requirements.  Staff also advised 
that the commission has the power to initiate a reversion if they want to do it. 
 The community request has been and still is clearly consistent with what Staff advised.  Again that 
request has been and is to deny this current case as filed.  Then, immediately initiate and ultimately 
approve a zoning reversion case back to S‐1 along with a companion action to revise the General Plan 
back to 0‐1 which aligns with the S‐1 zoning. 
 Clearly the Commission discussion, before this question was posed to Mr. Galvin, displayed 
understanding and agreement of the process to initiate a case for action on a reversion.

2
 Mr. Galvin’s opinion on reversion clouded the discussion and the community was denied equal 
opportunity to address the question after respectfully submitting a raised hand, waiting with no 
recognition and then submitting the request in writing.  Please reference the below screen capture. 
 Had the community been able to respond, I would have re‐stated Staff’s explanation and referenced the 
applicable City zoning ordinance (Chapter 5, Section 506, B.1 through B.3) as well as ARS Article 6.1 
Municipal Zoning, 9‐462. 
 Even though the community was not afforded equal opportunity to answer the Commission’s question, 
authorized City personnel are the appropriate entities who should be providing answers to the process 
and Commission’s powers. 
 
2. The lack of adequately addressing Commissioner McCabe’s question regarding the time stipulation expiration as 
a clause previously adopted by Ordinance clouded the discussion. 
 Unfortunately Staff did not directly or clearly provide the actual language of Ordinance G‐5020, 
Stipulation 19 which states:  “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 
48 months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the 
Zoning Ordinance.  For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of 
building permits and erection of building walls on site.”.   
 This Ordinance condition of zoning approval expired in October of 2011.  A required entitlement 
expiration should be enforced. 
 Staff did advise the Commission of the process to initiate a zoning reversion case, which is exactly what 
the community has asked for many times since 2011, up to and including in this May 7 meeting. 
 
I respectfully request Ordinance G‐5020, which was adopted by the City Council on October 10, 2007, and the minutes 
from that meeting be provided to and reviewed by all Commissioners.  In addition, I respectfully request review of GPA‐
LV‐1‐08‐7 – Resolution 20714.  This case resulted from  neighborhood requests of the City to act on their policy of 
creating consistency between the General Plan and zoning classification.  There is a letter in this case file from the 
Planning Director at that time that states the action was taken to “ create consistency between the Land Use Map and 
the approved R1‐8 zoning and to avoid creating a precedent for higher densities on the surrounding parcels.”.  This 
neighborhood requested City action was to ensure that an applicant wasn’t going to try and increase the R1‐8 zoning 
before it could be reverted in 2011. 
 
Your review of the above records will provide valuable context.  If you also review the overwhelming number of letters 
in opposition to this case, you will see there are many of us from 2007 that are still residents today.  Again, we welcome 
development and want and expect it to be consistent land use with the existing neighborhoods.  
 
I sincerely appreciate Commissioner Busching’s action of getting a first‐hand look at the area to truly understand the 
unique community, large lots and spacing that we want to preserve.  The type of low density in this specific area of 
Laveen has been carefully planned that way for well over two decades.  Furthermore, low density zoning is appropriate 
land use in this area and low density zoning classifications are very underrepresented in Laveen.  The video of our area is 
only 42 seconds long and can be played directly from this Dropbox 
link:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfmz2e6htiasqd/Laveen.mp4?dl=0 [dropbox.com] 
 
I would welcome and respectfully request a conversation or meeting with each individual member of the Commission.  I 
was significantly involved in the original case and would be happy to answer any questions.   In addition, I’d be pleased 
to host a tour of the area for anyone who would like to do so. 
 
I understand this is a difficult case for everyone involved.  It truly is very unfortunate that enforcement of this reversion 
entitlement was overlooked or missed over the last 9+ years, even though the community requested it be done.  The 
fact of the matter is it is still valid today and the City has a duty and obligation to enforce it.  
 
I sincerely appreciate your time and careful review and consideration of all information.

3
Respectfully, 
Cyd Manning 
 
3220 W. Ceton Drive 
480.747.0769 
sweetbeat@q.com 
 
 
Attached screen capture as referenced above:

4

5

May 20, 2020 
To: Phoenix Planning Commission 
Subject:  Meeting held 6PM, May 7, 2020 re:  Z‐165‐05‐(PHO‐1‐19) 
Thank you for providing me the opportunity on during the May 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to 
speak for 60 seconds regarding the subject case. 
First, I would like to remind the Planning Commission of its role….and I quote from your Charter below 
and would draw your attention to the bolded print: 
The Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council on all matters that might be 
referred to it by the City Council concerning or relating to a comprehensive plan of City building and 
improvement and recommends to the City Council, from time to time, amendments to the City Charter, 
ordinances providing for the purchase of sites for City buildings; opening, widening or other changes in 
streets and other public ways, and the ornamentation of such sites, streets, grounds and other public 
places; and such other ordinances as it may deem necessary and proper in the premises and that may 
tend  in  connection  with  such  comprehensive  plan  to  promote  the  public  health,  comfort,  safety, 
convenience, utility and welfare. The Planning Commission is also authorized to confer and advise with 
other similar City planning commissions or county planning commissions. 
It became very obvious that during the subject meeting that several members were uncomfortable with 
the issue at stake here, the S1 Zoning Reversion specifically called out in Stipulation #19 which states, and 
I quote: 
That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council 
approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For 
purposes  of  this  stipulation,  development  shall  commence  with  the  issuance  of  building  permits  and 
erection of building walls on site. 
Near the end of meeting the question to Staff was asked “has any action be taken to revert this case” and 
the answer was “no”.  Herein lies the problem, no action has been taken by the City of Phoenix because 
of  Senior  Leadership  (specifically  Alan  Stephenson  and  his  Deputy  Joshua  Bednarek)  have  unwisely, 
unethically and likely illegally chosen not to enforce Reversion which is a current documented process  
required in Zoning Ordinance Section 506, paragraph B 1 for this case.  
Before seeking legal action on behalf of the Community I am providing EVERY opportunity for the City of 
Phoenix to help remedy the lack of Senior Leadership Personal Accountability for enforcement of the 
previously referenced Reversion Policy.  Due to the current Covid‐19 situation a face to face meeting is 
unpractical so I have contacted via e‐mail and telecon Leigh Ann Mauger, Sr. Internal Auditor, City of 
Phoenix  ‐ Audit Department and she has initiated a case to investigate whether the allegations that I have 
made regarding the City’s refusal to follow documented Policies and Procedures (specifically Section 506 
paragraph B1) have merit or basis.  I provided a copy of the meeting minutes that I had with Joshua 
Bednarek as the basis for my claims. I am also providing you with a copy of this document for your review. 
And as a side note, it was unethical of this Committee to solicit input from only one Party regarding your 
discussion of the merits of the case if the Commission elected to deny this case.

In addition, Mr. Gavin incorrectly provided the Commission with inaccurate and deceiving information 
regarding Prop 207…..the Current Landowner was REQUIRED to sign a waiver giving up ALL rights to Prop 
207 when they purchased the property so they have no future claims against Prop 207 if the property 
reverts to S1 or any other zoning.  When the Landowner had Mr. Gavin’s Law Firm perform their due 
diligence prior to purchasing this property, they would have discovered this. 
While I respect the decision that you made in an effort to have the Developer and Community “work 
together” for an equitable solution I will implore the Commission one last time….when it is time to forward 
this case to the City Counsel, take the ethical and morally correct action, tell the City Council the simple 
facts regarding this case and recommend the following: 
1. This case should have never have been brought forward…..why?  Because the City of Phoenix has 
chosen not to follow its own Policies and procedures specifically for Reversion because if it did, 
back in 2011 (48 months after the initial zoning approval) this case should have been up for 
reversion and it was never initiated.  Remember, Reversion is another Public Process and it is not 
a  guaranteed  reversion  in  this  case  back  to  S1,  the  “Reversion  Process”  is  a  series  of  Public 
hearings to rezone the land back but it might not be accepted (likelihood is low)!  
2. Based on item 1 above do no recommend approval, deny this case. 
3. Create a recommendation that the City of Phoenix follow its internal processes and procedures 
and initiate Reversion Action in this case. 
I look forward to seeing what this Commission determines the correct course of action is for this specific 
case because as the Leaders of this Commission you are held to a higher standard than rank and file 
employees….you are accountable for what you know and more importantly what you should have 
known….and now that you are personally aware of the alleged claims of the City of Phoenix not 
following its processes and procedures (and I would ask that you personally verify this on your own, do 
not take my word for it) I sincerely hope that this Commission takes the correct steps by deciding not to 
be complicit with the City of Phoenix knowing full well that this case should have never existed! 
Thank you for your time.   
Sincerely, 
John M. Bzdel 
253‐549‐6826 
bzdel@earthlink.net

Meeting Minutes with Joshua Bednarek re: Z‐165‐05‐(PHO‐1‐19) 
1‐23/2020, 9AM at Mr. Bednarek's office 
 
Answers to my questions: 
 
 
Why was there no action taken in 2011 to “revert” the properties back to S1? 
o Since the early 2010’s, the City of Phoenix has reduced the number of available Staff 
Personal in the Planning/Zoning Department that would handle this type of activity from 
11 people to 5.  With the staff shortage the focus and priorities of the Department 
changed to reflect available staffing. 
o There isn’t a mechanism to automatically do this. 
 
I asked “is Zoning Ordinance Section 506, paragraph B 1.” Is still a valid and current procedure? 
o Joshua stated  the City of Phoenix no longer looks at the reversion process as a 
necessary process because they City believes that the original “intent” to rezone is still 
valid and affords the current property owner(s) the opportunity to further develop the 
property based on the City Council’s intended use. 
 
I then asked Joshua to read the above paragraph aloud where I underlined …”an 
application shall be initiated by the Planning Commission to revert zoning to its 
former classification, unless an extension of time has been granted prior to the 
expiration of the period specified by the schedule of the development”. He was 
familiar with this language. 
 
I asked Joshua to make sure that I fully understood his previous 
comments based on this procedural language and asked him that even 
though it is a requirement in the documented City’s Procedures to 
perform the reversion, that  the City has knowingly chosen not to 
follow the procedure? 
o Joshua waffled a bit and reiterated staffing shortages again and 
that the City’s philosophy is a bit different today based on his 
above comment that they want to afford Property owners full 
development rights via Prop 207.  I verified with Joshua that a 
waiver does exist on this subject property signed by the current 
Property Owner that waives Prop 207 and he then agreed that 
the property owner had no rights based on Prop 207. 
 
I asked Joshua what he believes that the Liability may be if the City specifically 
chooses not to follow or enforce their written processes and procedures?  He 
stated that he wasn’t a Lawyer or from the Law Department so he could fully

answer that question.  He went on to state that in this situation, where there 
are stipulations attached to Properties, that it is no different than someone who 
violates a weed ordinance or stipulation….the City doesn’t have the resources to 
address it. 
 
I shared City of Phoenix memo dated October 12, 2010 from Derek D. Horn to Planning 
Commission Members and asked if this process that was outlined is still current? 
o Joshua stated that the City does not have the resources to undertake the process and as 
stated previously, the focus on reversion and the philosophy behind it is different today. 
 
I asked if I was to review the Metric’s Deck reviewed by Alan at his Staff 
Meetings would I see any of the Department metrics include reversion? 
 
Joshua stated no that no metrics would be available today for the 
reversion process because it is not tracked, monitored or reviewed. 
 
I shared that the Community was concerned that the due to the City’s focus on not following it’s 
documented process and procedure that this indicates a bias and it does not afford ALL 
stakeholders the opportunity to voice concerns regarding City processes that “should have been 
followed” and are not. 
o Joshua didn’t fully understand this because he believes Zoning/Planning processes via 
the PHO as in this case are available to hear Community input.  I reiterated that the PHO 
process is clearly for addressing stipulations ONLY and NOT a rezoning discussion and 
that Adam Stranier (the PHO in this case) made this VERY clear.  Joshua went on to say 
that even if the City followed a reversion process, as in this case, that it still has to go 
through the Public Posting processes and that “automatic” reversion isn’t a guarantee 
because the current property owner has an input as well as the Community and the City 
Council. 
o I then counter this response and asked a “hypothetical” question…”in this case, if the 
City of Phoenix denied Z‐165‐05‐(PHO‐1‐19) and noted that the City would prefer to use 
the Reversion Process to address the Property Owners concerns as well as those of the 
Community and City Council, aren’t ALL stakeholders better served since the potential 
outcome has the benefit of ALL stakeholders’ inputs and the City would ALSO be 
compliant with it’s documented processes and procedures”?  I also added that the 
current property owner could also create/add/delete/propose whatever they want 
because the flood gate is open…a clear benefit for them as well. 
 
Joshua had to think about this for a moment before responding and indicated 
that this could be a viable path.  Based on his comment I asked him if he was 
ready to commit for the City that he would do this in this specific case and he 
quickly responded that he could not influence the opinion/outcome of the PHO 
officer in this case.   
 
I then asked if he should run this past Legal as an opportunity to be 
compliant with documented processes and procedures in the event that

this case gets legally challenged and he responded that he didn’t think 
so. 
o Joshua stated that even if the PHO ruled in favor of the subject 
case that any stakeholder has 7 days to appeal the decision to 
the City Council and could propose the ”hypothetical”  question 
to the City Council that I did to Joshua. 
 
I asked if I could suggest this “hypothetical” path to the PHO in this 
case? 
o Joshua stated that he could only take comments that were 
made public at the hearing and not after the fact. 
 
I countered with “Adam stated that he needed to take 
this under advisement and review all relevant facts and 
data…..isn’t the potential path I proposed one of them? 
 
Joshua countered with he  (the PHO) could 
come to that same conclusion. 
Unfortunately we ran out of time and our meeting concluded. 
 
John Bzdel  
253‐549‐6826

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
D M <darcy3535@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, June 6, 2020 7:12 PM
To:
PDD Laveen VPC; Racelle Escolar; Joshua Bednarek; Alan Stephenson
Subject:
To Council Members re: Quarry Case Decision 165 - 06
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Due By:
Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:00 PM
Flag Status:
Completed
Good afternoon, 
I was present online at the planning meeting on Thurs June 4 and wanted to tell you what a disappointment the 
commission's decision was to approve the Quarry Case Z‐165‐06.   
After all the patting on the back you did of yourselves and appreciating all of us for our passion, your decision was still 
wrong. 
If any of you lived on the south side of the Quarry you would be fighting to oppose the type of density that was 
approved. 
I'm actually surprised with the amount of opposition that this had, not more of your members came around to see our 
area. It really goes to show that if it doesn't affect you personally, then the party with the most money wins.   
And, because there has been no past case in prior zoning reversions, it doesn't mean that the committee has a right to 
overlook and not enforce the intent.  
I'm disheartened by your committee's decision but I'm thankful for great neighbors that will continue to appeal this for 
our community. 
 
Darcy Meyer 
3535 W Bohl St 
Laveen, AZ 85339