Attachment E - Opposition - Z-1-20-7.pdf

Attachment E

From:
jpdrey@msn.com
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
RE: City of Phoenix - Questions on development
Date:
Monday, October 19, 2020 9:15:50 PM
Hello Enrique, you have asked how I was and I have failed to ask how you are? Im well as I
hope you are...although your email was after 7 so I hope you have clocked off for evening! So
thank you. Just a couple more last minute comments/concerns on Case Z-1-20-7. Pertaining to
wall height: Maybe consideration can be given for just our parcels side east(west side of open
space /MUT area) and also just north area around current adjacent parcels in the county
island? Six feet is really not that tall in comparison to what just a foot or more could
accomplish for privacy, but we understand COP guidelines.Thank you for additional
explanation on that.I was aware opposite east side where proposed MUT's east side will be,
would not be walled. Im adjacent on that west side.Recently in discussion with Sherri(Empire
rep) the division wall between our parcels it would be walled, so that is what I was referencing
in last email. As per screening: I did read section addressing this but wasnt aware it would be
considered as division between our parcels southern border with north border of Empires
parcel. At community meeting last Feb, their V.P. Shelby, explained they were erecting
seperation wall only six inches from our shared parcel borders with footings and the whole
explanation of it. Obviously that was months back,so currently if having option to have more
seperation with tree/landscaping between our shared parcel borders it would be very
welcomed. Its difgicult to assertain that by looking at site map. We dont know what other site
element options would be acceptable, but as long as its not a road or added thoroughfare for
future site residents again, we welcome that. As for screening along our east side parcel where
Empire will be erecting a wall and west side of proposed MUT area, we welcome any
additional trees or element options for privacy/added screening. Just a side note, currently in
discussing with Empire, in that area along our shared eastern border,there is multiple type
trees as well as major overgrowth that they plan on clearing, and we have shared concern since
we do have a N/S running irrigation ditch in that area, but it was stated plan was to erect wall
farther east of that. We are welcoming that desicion, but we would be limited in screening
options on our parcel side due to irrigation structure placement and proximity of division wall
so again, any consideration to other sidein concern to foliage would be welcomed.Thank you
again for addressing our thoughts/concerns we really appreciate your time and
effort...Sincerely, Jennifer Drey
On Oct 19, 2020 7:32 PM, Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola <enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov> wrote:
Hello Jennifer,
How are you? Thanks for your statement on case Z-1-20-7. I will add it to the case file and
share it with the Estrella Village VPC tomorrow. In terms of the site, the maximum allowed
height for a wall between residentially zoned properties is 6-feet (there are a few instances
where a higher wall is permitted, but I don’t think this will be allowed under the current
conditions).
Staff has recommended placing the larger trees between the proposed development and

From: jpdrey@msn.com <jpdrey@msn.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:25 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola <enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov>
Subject: RE: City of Phoenix - Questions on development
 
Thank you for your response and attachment on meeting, and it was very much
appreciated.Of course as affected party I would of hoped to read that more of my
community would of voiced displeasure with proposed development, but I know theres
much apathy since state route 30 was decided. Plus, if its not in your backyard so to speak,
maybe one would be less concerned. I dont think Ill be speaking at next meeting, but thank
you for invite per instructions. We do plan on listening in though. If not too late to voice, the
only other concern/consideration we have is perimeter wall heigth. If I read correctly
community surround walls would be six feet, and maybe that is COP guidelines. There are
subdivisions north of lower buckeye/buckeye on 107th and 115th with higher exterior walls.
Plus for our location, we are directly adjacent to future MUT for 103rd area.We would
prefer not to consistently see neighbors in their back yards or future trail users.Again,
appreciate EVPC effort to cover all aspects of current and future development. Im sure it is
difficult to appease rural neighborhoods balanced with progression of citites. You and staff
should be given more accolades!! Sincerely, Jennifer Drey 
 
On Oct 16, 2020 6:33 PM, Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola <enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov> wrote:
Good evening Jennifer,
 
How are you? I wanted to share with you the staff report for case Z-1-20-7 (see attached)
in reference to the development of the property located on the SEC of 107th Avenue and
Southern.
 
Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to address the Estrella Village
Planning Committee on 10/20.

From:
Stacy Lewis Hayes
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
ZONING CHANGE
Date:
Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:38:32 AM
Hello,
We are Ron and Stacy Hayes and we own five parcels from 103rd to 105th Avenue on
Southern, approximately 7 acres.  We are opposed to high density houses to the east of us and
to the south and west of us.  However, if this zoning is considered we would prefer that all
residences be considered by the builder not to block the southern view that all of us along
Southern Avenue have enjoyed for generations.   We would also request that low lighting and
dark skies be considered as well as the amount of traffic that will increase on this small two
lane road.  There has already been two major accidents at the entrance of the new housing
development at 115th and Broadway.
Many of us in this area have been here for years and just because we don’t have huge wallets
to purchase and development, there should be consideration for  longevity of families who
have been here.  Everything doesn’t have to be about the dollar.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Ron and Stacy Hayes
10447 W Southern Avenue
Tolleson, AZ 85353
602-316-3861
-- 
Stacy Lewis Hayes
Vern Lewis Welding Supply Inc.

From:
Alissa Bagley
To:
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject:
City of Phoenix GPA & Rezoning - Z-1-20-7
Date:
Tuesday, October 27, 2020 4:53:48 PM
Good afternoon, 
I am a resident living approximately 1 mile from this project and wanted to make a few comments
about this proposed subdivision. I am a bit late to this, but I have been working from home and have
not headed in this direction in quite some time and so had not seen the sign on the property until
this last weekend. 
I understand that we are going through a large housing demand, but I also know why my husband
and I moved to this particular area. Although it is very close to the racetrack, it is far enough away
from busy streets and noise to enjoy the rural area. While I can appreciate a developer wanting to
come in and add rooftops to what is a beautiful environment, I do not believe that they are doing
this in a way to complement the community. With Alamar in Avondale, the SR30 and now this
project, there seems to be a great deal of rooftops and traffic being added to a small rural
community. I understand the necessity of these projects but it would be nice to keep the higher
density to the north of the SR30 as Avondale is doing. 
As other comments I saw within the staff report have stated, the density that they are seeking is too
high in contrast with the surrounding property. 4.24 dwelling units per acre is over double what the
current General Plan allows and still more than what staff is stipulating. It is disheartening that a
developer would seek to come into a rural area and not try to keep some semblance of the
surrounding properties, but instead want to build another cookie-cutter subdivision. I do want to
thank staff for the stipulations of the decreased density and other stipulations that aim to preserve
the rural atmosphere around this project. 
The density, however is not my only concern. The comment from the representative of the St. John’s
Irrigation District, stating that there is serious concern about the impact that this project could have
on the open irrigation ditches is cause for alarm. My neighbors and I rely on irrigation to water our
fields and feed our animals. If this is interrupted or not maintained, it is a disruption to how we have
built our lives in this area. I did not see any stipulations from staff or any part of the staff report that
addressed this. I have to assume that other communities have adapted to these types of
improvements, but it should be addressed by the developer so that the community is aware there
will not be any issues. 
I can only hope that Planning Commission and Council agree with the staff recommendation and
stipulations. So many of my neighbors are already going to lose their homes when the SR30 is
constructed, it is very disheartening that such a high-density subdivision would be placed here. This
marked increase in homes will cause more traffic and noise, when I know that those in this
community have moved out here in order to stay away from exactly that. 
 
Thank you, 
Alissa Magley