View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
NOVEMBER 13, 2024) - Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning
Application Z-74-24-6 - Northeast Corner of 21st Street and Turney Avenue
(Ordinance G-7319) - District 6

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-74-24-
6 and rezone the site from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-5
Acreage: 1.82
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: 4401 Turney Villas, LLC; 2118 Turney, LLC; Charles Goodwin, III
Applicant/Representative: Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
August 6, 2024, and a motion to recommend approval failed by a vote of 7-9. No
recommendation was forwarded to the Planning Commission.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, by a vote of 9-0. The
Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member and
petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on October 17, 2024. A three-quarter
vote is not required.

Location
Northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Avenue
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 4401, 4405, 4407, and 4421 N. 21st Street; and 2118 E. Turney
Avenue

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

To: Alan Stephenson Date: January 15, 2025
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednarek�
Planning and Development Director

Subject: ITEM 39 ON THE JANUARY 22, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA- PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDINANCE ADOPTION - REZONING APPLICATION Z-74-24-6-
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 21ST STREET AND TURNEY AVENUE
(ORDINANCE G-7319)

Item 39, Rezoning Application Z-74-24-6, is a request to rezone 1.82-acres located at the
northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Avenue from R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) to R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.

The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard the case on August 6, 2024, and
a motion to recommend approval failed by a vote of 7-9. No recommendation was
forwarded to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, and recommended
approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, by a vote of 9-0.

This item was continued at the November 13, 2024, City Council Formal meeting to the
January 22, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to provide the applicant additional time
to engage with the community regarding their concerns and to present to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee at the January meeting for a
recommendation.

The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard the item on January 7, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification, by a vote of
13-7.

The revised stipulations are listed below with updates in BOLD AND CAPITAL letters.

Additional correspondence received after the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
meeting is available online at https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planninq
zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports.

Staff recommends approval, subject to the following stipulations:

1. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be 64.

2. The building height shall be limited to a maximum 3 stories and 39 feet within 37 feet
of the Turney Avenue property line and within 45 feet of the 21st Street property line.

Z-74-24-6 Backup Memo
January 15, 2025
Page 3

13. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle (EV)
Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

14. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water
Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.

15. Landscaping shall I.le maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.

16. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf areas
to reduce water waste.

17. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by structures or by
minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a combination thereof.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., per
the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development
Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the
property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.

20. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

21. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.

Approved:

Enclosure:
January 7, 2025, Camelback East VPC Summary for Z-74-24-6 (8 pages)

ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-74-24-6) FROM R-3 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-5 (MULTI FAMILY DISTRICT).

____________

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.82-acre site located at the northeast corner

of 21st Street and Turney Avenue in a portion of Section 22, Township 2 North, Range

3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “R-3”

(Multifamily Residence District) to “R-5” (Multifamily Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning 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:

1. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be 64.

2. The building height shall be limited to a maximum 3 stories and 39 feet within
37 feet of the Turney Avenue property line and within 45 feet of the 21st Street
property line.

3. The landscape setback along 21st Street shall be planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center,
or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. A minimum 40-foot building setback shall be provided along the north property
lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. A minimum 5-foot sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 21st Street,
adjacent to the development.

6. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk, separated by a minimum 7-foot-
wide landscape area, shall be constructed on the north side of Turney Avenue.
The landscape area shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk,
large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

7. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way on 21st Street shall
be undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall
coordinate with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

8. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

9. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

10. Bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit, up
to a maximum of 50 spaces, and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

11. A minimum of three of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station; a
tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and
wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

13. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

14. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

15. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.

16. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

17. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and

operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.

20. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

21. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 22nd day of January,

2025.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:

_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-74-24-6

Maricopa County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 163-31-012 and 163-31-015

The land referred to herein is situated in a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section
22, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, and is legally described as follows:

Parcel No. 1:

Lot 4 in Block 1, HOMESIDE ACRES, according to Book 20 of Maps, Page 18, records
of Maricopa County, Arizona;

EXCEPT the North 100.00 feet; and

EXCEPT the South 90 feet.

Parcel No. 2:

The West 166.00 feet of the South 90.00 feet of Lot 4 in Block 1, HOMESIDE ACRES,
according to Book 20 of Maps, Page 18, records of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Maricopa County Assessor’s Parcel Number 163-31-014B

The land referred to herein is situated in a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section
22, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, and is legally described as follows:

The West 77 feet of the East 134 feet of the South 90 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, of
HOMESIDE ACRES, according to the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder
of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book 20 of Maps, Page 18;

EXCEPT any part thereof lying within the West 166 feet of the South 90 feet of said Lot
4, Block 1 of said subdivision.

Maricopa County Assessor’s Parcel Number 163-31-013D

The land referred to herein is situated in a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section
22, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, and is legally described as follows:

Parcel No. 1:

The East half of the following described property:

The North 100 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, of HOMESIDE ACRES, according to the plat of
record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book
20 of Maps, Page 18.

Except the West 100 feet.

Parcel No. 2:

An Easement for ingress and egress over the North 20 feet of the West 100 feet of the
North 100 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, of HOMESIDE ACRES, according to the plat of record in
the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book 20 of
Maps, Page 18.

Parcel No. 3:

An Easement for ingress and egress of the North 20 feet of the following described
property:

The West half of the following described property:

The North 100 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, of HOMESIDE ACRES, according to the plat of
record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book
20 of Maps, Page 18.

Except the West 100 feet.

ATTACHMENT B

Staff Report Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

Camelback East Village Planning August 6, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: September 5, 2024
Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(1.82 acres)
Request To: R-5 (Multifamily Residence District)
(1.82 acres)
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Location: Northeast corner of 21st Street and
Turney Avenue
Owner: 4401 Turney Villas, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham,
PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
Residential 10 to15 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
acre

21st Street Local 30-foot east half street
Street Map
Classification
Turney Avenue Local 30-foot north half street

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new
development or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of
the surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development
standards to prevent negative impact(s) on residential properties.

The proposal, as stipulated, will allow a new residential development in a
neighborhood where there is a range of existing residential use types. As stipulated,
the proposal will provide a large building setback along the north property lines to
buffer the use from the single-family residences to the north.

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Protect residential
areas from concentrations of incompatible land uses that could change their
character or destabilize land values.

The proposal is a compatible use of similar size and type in the surrounding
neighborhood. The proposal will also complement the area by providing a range of
housing types in accordance with the Housing Phoenix Plan.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal, as stipulated, incorporates streetscape and design standards to
promote a pedestrian-friendly environment along 21st Street and Turney Avenue that
is compatible with the surrounding residential development in the area.

R-5 (Multifamily Residence District)
Subdivision Development Option
Standards Requirements Site Plan Provisions
Gross Acres - 1.82 acres
Maximum Dwelling Units 79 75 (Met)
Maximum Density (dwelling 43.5 41.21 (Met)
units/acre)
Maximum Building Height 4 stories or 48 feet 4 stories and 48 feet (Met)
Minimum Building Setbacks
North (side) 3 feet 46 feet (Met)
East (rear) 15 feet 48 feet (Met)
West (21st Street, front) 20 feet 10 feet (Not Met*)
South (Turney Avenue, side) 10 feet 9 feet (Not Met*)
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North (side) 5 feet 5 feet (Met)
East (rear) 5 feet 5 feet (Met)
West (21st Street, front) 20 feet 10 feet (Not Met*)
South (Turney Avenue, side) 10 feet 9 feet (Not Met*)
Lot Standards
Minimum Open Space 5 percent 5.26 percent (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent 15 percent (Met)
Minimum Parking 113 vehicular spaces 96 vehicular spaces (Not
Met*)
*Site plan modification required or variance must be obtained.

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 6.

Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 7.

Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan – Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 10.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 11.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 12.

Conservation Measures for New Development – See Background Item No. 13.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
Single-family and multifamily
On Site R-3
residential
Single-family and multifamily
North R-3
residential
West (across 21st Street) Multifamily residential R-5
East Multifamily residential R-3
South (across Turney Avenue) Multifamily residential R-5

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.82 acres located at the northeast corner of 21st Street
and Turney Avenue, from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) for a multifamily residential development.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. There are single-family and multifamily residences to the north zoned R-3
(Multifamily Residence District), and to the south, across Turney Avenue is a
multifamily residential development zoned R-5 (Multifamily Residence District). To
the west, across 21st Street, is a multifamily residential development zoned R-5
(Multifamily Residence District).

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
3. The General Plan Land Use Map depicts the subject site and the properties to the
north, south and east with a designation of Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre. The area to the west, across 21st Street, has a General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre. The request to rezone the
site to R-5 is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation,
however, a General Plan Amendment is not required as the site is under 10 acres.

General Plan Land Use Map; Source: Planning and Development Department

PROPOSAL
4. The site plan, attached as an exhibit, proposes a 75-unit multifamily residential
development with an outdoor amenity area, pool, clubhouse, and gym. The site
plan includes 96 parking spaces along the northern sides of the building, secured
bicycle parking in the residential building and in the northeast parking lot. Full
driveway access to the parking lots will be from 21st Street and Turney Avenue.
Landscaping along the northern property line will include trees and shrubs to
provide added buffering along the property perimeter. A detached sidewalk along
Turney Avenue and an attached sidewalk along 21st Street will provide pedestrian
connections to the adjacent residential developments in the area. The sidewalks
will include trees for shade coverage. Due to the need to seek variances for the
patio projections within the building and landscape setbacks along 21st and Turney
Avenue and a reduction in parking, staff does not recommend general
conformance to the site plan. Staff recommends Stipulation Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 15 to

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

provide an enhanced pedestrian environment, shade, and an enhanced setback
along the north property lines.

5. The conceptual elevations attached as an exhibit, demonstrate four-sided
architecture with a building height of 48 feet with various architectural features
including fenestrations, shade devices, balcony railings and a smooth exterior
finish. The building includes windows, entry accent features and neutral color tones
to complement the existing residential developments along 21st Street and Turney
Avenue.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
6. Phoenix Climate Action Plan:
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce
urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This
goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 16, which requires a minimum of two GI
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.

7. Housing Phoenix Plan:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposal supports the
Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing
to a variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid
pace while using vacant land in a more sustainable fashion. The proposal includes
75 units which includes studios, one- and two-bedroom units.

8. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached from
the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
proposal, as stipulated, will create a streetscape environment with a shaded and
detached sidewalk and the parking lot landscaping will include shade trees. These

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 15.

9. Transportation Electrification Action Plan:
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is
both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a
reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and
maintenance costs. Businesses, governments, and the public are signaling strong
future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers
have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming
decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled
with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a
roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000
EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of
electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging
infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV
charging infrastructure. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 9 and 11.

10. Complete Streets Guiding Principles:
The City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles.
The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The proposed development, as
stipulated, will support walking, bicycling, and transit-use by including bicycle
parking on the site, by including a bicycle repair (fix it) station to help patrons keep
their bikes in a state of good repair, and by constructing a shaded and detached
sidewalk along 21st Street. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 through 10.

11. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan:
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
As stipulated, the development will provide a bicycle repair station and bicycle
parking spaces per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 10.

12. Zero Waste Phoenix PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. The proposal includes
the placement of a recycling receptacle will be provided for residential use.

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

13. Conservation Measures for New Development:
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the Sustainable
Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12 through 16.

COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE
14. As of the writing of this report, no community correspondence has been received.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Street Transportation Department identified that this subject site is within the
20th Street bicycle corridor which is consistent with bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure development. The 20th Street Improvement Project is currently under
construction and is designed to greatly enhance connectivity with existing and
planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and transit service for this
transportation corridor and throughout the Camelback East Village Core. On-site
bicycle lockers, fix-it stations, and other infrastructure should be considered as part
of the residential development. This is addressed in Stipulations Nos. 8 and 10.
The Street Transportation Department also required an attached sidewalk on 21st
Street, a detached sidewalk on Turney Avenue, that utilities be undergrounded,
and all street improvements be made to City and ADA standards. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 through 7.

OTHER
16. The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record documents that
disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to
future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 17.

17. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 18.

18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 19.

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

19. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other
formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments
may be required.

Findings:

1. The proposal is appropriate at this location and is consistent with the scale and
existing uses in the surrounding area.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, will incorporate landscaping and shading
that will enhance the location, consistent with General Plan goals and principles.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with the Housing
Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.

Stipulations:

1. The landscape setback along 21st Street shall be planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or
in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. A minimum 40-foot building setback shall be provided along the north property
lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum 5-foot sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 21st Street,
adjacent to the development.

4. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk, separated by a minimum 7-foot-wide
landscape area, shall be constructed on the north side of Turney Avenue. The
landscape area shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way on 21st Street shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

6. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

7. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

8. Bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit, up
to a maximum of 50 spaces, and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

9. A minimum of three of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

10. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station; a
tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels
to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

11. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

12. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

13. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.

14. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

15. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by

Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
July 26, 2024

the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

16. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc.,
per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact
Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

17. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.

18. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

19. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Writer
John Roanhorse
July 26, 2024

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped May 30, 2024
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped May 30, 2024 (2 pages)

R1-6
Camelback East
Primary Core R-3A * R-5
Specific Plan
C-O SP * Z-58-95
R-3 Z-SP-42-82

CAMPBELL AVE

R-5 R-2
R-5 *
R-5 * Z-272-78
Z-272-78
R-4 * R-3 SELLS DR

20TH ST
Z-20-97

R-5 *
Z-71-86 22ND ST ROMA AVE
R1-6
23RD ST
19TH PL
TURNEY AVE R1-6
R-3 * R-5 *
21ST ST NO NAME
SP
Z-27-91 Z-210-86

MONTECITO AVE

R-3 R-2 *
Z-210-86
GLENROSA AVE

¯ Miles Z-74-24
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0 0.03 0.06 0.11 CAMELBACK RD

7TH ST
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
16TH ST
THOMAS RD

24TH ST
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST

40TH ST
32ND ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
FROM: R-3 ( 1.82 a.c.)
DATE:
6/24/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-74-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R-5 ( 1.82 a.c.)
1.82Acres QS 17-32 H-9
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
R-3 26 31
R-5 79 95
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 136
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-74-24.aprx
R1-6
Camelback East
Primary Core R-3A * R-5
Specific Plan
C-O SP * Z-58-95
R-3 Z-SP-42-82

CAMPBELL AVE

R-5 R-2
R-5 *
R-5 * Z-272-78
Z-272-78
R-4 * R-3 SELLS DR

20TH ST
Z-20-97

R-5 *
Z-71-86 22ND ST ROMA AVE
R1-6
23RD ST
19TH PL
TURNEY AVE R1-6
R-3 * R-5 *
21ST ST NO NAME
SP
Z-27-91 Z-210-86

MONTECITO AVE

R-3 R-2 *
Z-210-86
GLENROSA AVE

¯ Miles Z-74-24
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0 0.03 0.06 0.11 CAMELBACK RD

7TH ST
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
16TH ST
THOMAS RD

24TH ST
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST

40TH ST
32ND ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
FROM: R-3 ( 1.82 a.c.)
DATE:
6/24/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-74-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R-5 ( 1.82 a.c.)
1.82Acres QS 17-32 H-9
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
R-3 26 31
R-5 79 95
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 137
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-74-24.aprx
' 7

PROJECT INFORMATION
lffED,O.l
• PROPERlYO'M\ER
1 te�e �te?a;s
I ss SCOTTSIIALE1Z.USAl5251
.,_ 2 390 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD
SIJTE130
uJ
• DESIGNPROFESSIONII.. KENZYMCHTECTUIEIINTIRJORS PHO::NIX, ARIZONA 85016
..-
l!III0ECR.IEI..BAC�RD.SIJTE130
PHOEM
-F========�===l========== �===�d
��! P:6 0 2.6 2 0.8792
•PROPERlY.<00RESSES00"5SESSORPMCEl"-M!ERS PHOENX.�:::;

1:i,21UIISF(NET)/ Zl,705.l 2 SF(OROSS)
211 1EASTT\RIEYAVEN.JE
PHOENX,
��.:
7,D77 ,0IISFll'ET)lll.2 9 9. 28SF(OROSS)
�NORTH?ISTSTREET
PHOENX.�ss_::;

:�::_:-::_:-:_:'J 3lOfU2 SF(NET)/JU911.USf(OROSS)
I1
'-ll!NORTHZ!STSlREET
PHOENX,
:I �:,'1�
11 1.'6UISFJ'IETN-CIOROSS)
:I (L0TCOMllHATI0NRECUESTFORAU. FOUI.PNlCELS)
I'
•SITESDUME FODTMIEIACREAOE M,111,75Sf/UOACRES(NET)
:I 7t,25UOSF/U1...e:RES(OROSS)
•PROPOS8lPH,,\SINO 11-tSIS NOT,.PWISEDPR0.ECT
•EXISTINOZONNO
•PROP0S8l2�
•ft-liOE\'ELOPlilENToP110N
(flE20tlERElllJESTFROt.lR4TOR-6)
..
, AU.OWABLEIPf!OPOSEOOEffSllY Ca6t1JIN:lit}.�:.:�
•AU.OWABLEIPRDPOSBlHEIOHT 4STORIES(41'�/4STON
•AU.0WABLEIPROPOSBlL0TCOVERAOE �;8;�
•REOIIREDIPROPOSEDCOl,NO'IMEA l,1165SF/4,175SF

UPPER LEVELS �� .!1 l,_Ullata.DIMSETIIACMS
•REOURBl/ PR0POSEDFRONT(21STSTREET) 2/Nf'/'.tl-t "
, ftEOURBllPROPOSEDSTREETSIOE(TUltlEYAIIEt,JEJ 10"-G'/111'�
, ftEQURBllPR0POSE0INTERIOASIOES{NORTH.WEST,H«lSOUTH) 3' - G'l-• 0"
, ftEOlJRBllPR0POSEDRENl{EMT) tS"-11'/-lfQ
"'""'
• sn.oou..-rs '"" HINTS
• 18EDINTS l'"I """'
• 28EDINTS ,..I "'"''
•TOTAL!Nn "'""
UIITTYl'EIPBII..E\U.
•Sl\DOUhlTS lf10N LEVEL1)
• t8EDINTS 7(2 0N LEVEL1)
• 28EDINTS 12{'0NLEVEL1)
T'IPIC.ll.UIITSF
•Sl\DOUhlTS '2 3 SF
• t8EDINTS ""'
•28EDINTS �"
•PARl·--
• VEHCULARPMKINO(t.5Xr.llNTS):
• ACCESSIII.EP..w11l.5VEHC\I.ARSTM..l.S
4ACCESSIII.ESTM..l.S
• LOIOINOSPACES{25,150 DWEWNO INTS� 1LOMJNOSPACE
• BIC'l'Q.EPNU(ll0{0,25�751NTS� tUSIIC'l'a.ESTM..l.S
•PARlTURNEY VILLAS
-�=
tlOPERPEIOC\I.ARSTM..l.S
APARTMENTS
JPMIUELSTM..l.S
":""B=o, 4-'CCESSIII.ESTM.l.S
1LOMJNOSPACE 4-401TURNEYv1LLASLLC
2 2 BICYa.ESTM..l.S
: iI!�7 4-401NORTH215T STREET
a&JlllGOATA PHOEMX, ARIZONA 85016
•�N'IEA
·=• 11,710SF
·=• lt,r.4-ISF
·=• 19,r.4-ISF
·=• tt,r.4-ISF
• TOTAL: 711.M2SF
•OCCUPNIC'l'a..ASSIACATION: FWRESIOENTIM. -
I- • •
-·-·-•-- I ii I II �-
�l '7 i,. 57.51'
ti ,.,.,., ti' I
I . I �' I VICINITY MAP 24,000SF/IIOFT/4STDRIES
IIO,OOOSF/IIOFT/4STORIES

LJLJI II : :,::::::::::::: 7D,M2SF/41FT/4STORIES

M,T C�BELLAVENUE

PR@ECTSITE
KIVA PROJECT# 24-189 ZONING CASE#
SDEV# 2400063 PAPP/FACT#
_Jlif_JL__
...""""
APPROVAL STAMP AREA

=EASTTURN=EYAVENUEI EASTGI.E�
NOT FOR
EXISTINOFIRE
I �-
□□� CONSTRUCTION

GROUND FLOOR
1111 1
� I17Ilfln:I II I
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
\j
0 ffi A011
�
ARCHITECTURAL SITE
PLAN

_J

' 7
OENEIW.NOTES(EXTEPIORELEVATIO�t

te�e �te?a;s
2 390 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD
uJ
SIJTE130
PHO::NIX, ARIZONA 85016
P:6 0 2.6 2 0.8792
WWW.KENZYARCI-NTECTS.COM

-------�

7 1,l �ICTI
BO UL: 01 �

TURNEY VILLAS c-------�
�
[5[J DEJ1
.... --------�.:.$
� F1Fii<71,
!j/
fl
-------,\�

_L�

(D----WERIOR ELEVATION_SOUTH a...-:....J
'i

TURNEY VILLAS
APARTMENTS
#01TURNEYv1LLAS LLC
.U01NORTH215T STREET
PHOEMX, ARIZONA 85016

- - - - - - - - -�»-$-
L-........J; L--l ,J I L--l

m @llLi ._ [[!! ID'!� IIl 'mi i1ijijQ ITI ---------��

m �DGJ � HEJ m �111['] m � rn ---------�

- - - - - - - - -1\�� NOT FOR
DD�� •�
�-.____.__� � �� f! -�/1! m
CONSTRUCTION

r ■ ■ ./ ! ■ 1 -- -�
-
G)---WERIOR ELEVATION_NORTH "
A201
..,:
'lllr-- • EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
L I _J N/S

_J

' 7
GDERAl,NQTE§(EXTEl!IDftEJ.EVATictlS't

te�e �te?a;s
2 390 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD
uJ
SIJTE130
PHO::NIX, ARIZONA 85016
P:6 0 2.6 2 0.8792
WWW.KENZYARCI-NTECTS.COM

-----�
r=== ---
...::::::::J
ILJU
��· IUL.1 .... •
IE[:J[llj
lrm 1 -----�

[:JD IT] ... ICE] IT] -----�+-$-
[ll]...___,
....__ -----,��
• I I
= �llm �Si�
-��
ERIOR ELEVATION WEST
0----W
�

TURNEY VILLAS
APARTMENTS
#01TURNEYv1LLAS LLC
.U01NORTH215T STREET
PHOEMX, ARIZONA 85016

---------�w
....:::::1 1.--1. J I>
� � �rr�r:.-r
1o I,I l:E1. �... �- --------iF.�
/'
(E�[]EJ
E � I .�
�-------
�--t
D.. U"----" OLJL-

�,______.__.,- --------�� NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION

11111 l 7 � �
ERIOR ELEVATION_EAST
0-W A202
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
L
� _J E/W

_J

ATTACHMENT C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

Date of VPC Meeting August 6, 2024
Request From R-3
Request To R-5
Proposal Multifamily residential
Location Northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Avenue
VPC Recommendation No recommendation
VPC Vote n/a

VPC DISCUSSION:

Eight members of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition.
Seven members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the rezoning request noting that
the committee will vote on the case. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the proposal location, the
existing and proposed zoning districts, and surrounding land uses and adjacent streets. Mr.
Roanhorse displayed the site plan, development standards for building height, parking, site
access, setbacks, streetscapes and open space. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the General
Plan Land Use Map designation. Mr. Roanhorse displayed and reviewed the staff findings
and recommendation for approval subject to stipulations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:

Ashley Marsh representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, PLC introduced
herself and recognized Michelle Santoro, with Gammage & Burnham, PLC and Mr. Richard
Kafka who developed the Tapatio hotel. Ms. Marsh stated that Mr. Kafka is pleased with
the opportunity to bring this proposal forward and has extensive expertise in project
development. Ms. Marsh reviewed the details of the site including location, size, history,
and current layout of the site. Ms. Marsh stated the location is underutilized compared to
many of the adjacent residences in the area. Ms. Marsh noted the proximity of the site in
relation to the Camelback Corridor which is an important feature for residential

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

development that is situated near commercial uses to the north and south. Ms. Marsh
stated the site currently is zoned R-3 and is within an existing multi-family residential district
area with R-5 zoning built up to three stories which includes the adjacent Dakota and
Biltmore Commons. Ms. Marsh said that the multifamily residential designs of the area
have various options with urban design concepts. Ms. Marsh stated the current site has
1970’s styled architecture and no perimeter sidewalks and are single story in an area
where there are multi-story residences. Ms. Marsh displayed a site plan and reviewed the
details noting the height of 48 feet, four stories, and that the buildings are placed closer to
the corner with significant setbacks to create an urban concept for building massing on the
streetscape. Ms. Marsh stated the proposal has 75 units with a mix of studio, one bedroom
and two-bedroom units and the first floor will accommodate amenities for the proposal. Ms.
Marsh stated the ground level around the building will include 22 parking spaces, enhanced
landscaping and setbacks situated away from the adjacent properties. Ms. Marsh displayed
conceptual elevations and stated the proposed design fits in the existing neighborhood and
with the patios there is connection to pedestrian activity. Ms. Marsh stated the proposal
does meet the city’s Housing Phoenix Plan, the Tree and Shade Master Plan by including
25 percent shading and will include electrical vehicle charging. Ms. Marsh stated the
proposal include bicycle amenities for charging and is within the Bicycle Master Plan area.
Ms. Marsh said a neighborhood meeting was held and there was support and concerns
expressed by neighbors including privacy, increased traffic and building height. Ms. Marsh
stated Mr. Will Kahili with Lokahi conducted a traffic study and the results was the
additional trips in the area would be minimal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Paceley asked if the sidewalks were detached. Ms. Marsh
responded that the current site plan is outdated and the sidewalk along Turney Avenue will
be detached and the sidewalk along 21st Street will be attached, and this is consistent with
the Street Transportation Department requirements.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Lee Busenbark introduced herself as a resident from a neighborhood next to the proposed
site. Ms. Busenbark stated there is limited traffic access to the neighborhood where the
proposed site is located. Ms. Busenbark stated that speed cushions were installed on 20th
Street but there has been an increase in traffic due to the development in the area. Ms.
Busenbark stated there is a housing shortage, but there is a shortage of single-family
developments and there is more multifamily development that removes single family
residences. Ms. Busenbark asked why are there no attached or semi-attached and single-
family developments being built. Ms. Busenbark stated that there should be opportunities
for homeowners who have a greater stake in neighborhoods rather than commercial rental
owners.

Robert Greenberg introduced himself and stated he resides in a townhome on 21st Street
which faces the parking lot of the proposed development. Mr. Greenberg stated the location
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 142
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

of the parking lot is problematic due to increased traffic noise and lighting and said with
school traffic there are more drivers in the area. Mr. Greenberg stated that with kids being
picked up and dropped off this is a safety issue, and a traffic light is needed. Mr. Greenberg
stated that the existing single-family homes on the site add quality to the area. Mr.
Greenberg stated that development needs to address affordable housing, the parking lot
poses a problem and the increased traffic at the intersection needs to be addressed, and
the site needs appropriate fencing, and the architecture of the proposal should add to the
neighborhood.

John Paletta introduced himself and stated he resides on Glenrosa Avenue. Mr. Paletta
displayed maps of the area and stated he has been following development in the
neighborhood for 20 years and is aware of some of the historic details. Mr. Paletta stated
he is concerned the proposal is being fast tracked and there was not sufficient information
provided. Mr. Paletta stated that there have been previous high-density proposals that were
defeated, and the more recent developments have been two stories which is not consistent
with the existing building height in the area. Mr. Paletta stated the neighbors in the area
have opposed higher densities to maintain the quality of the area. Mr. Paletta said that it
would be beneficial if the presentation was for information only and a recommendation
meeting should be conducted at a later date as a better option for the neighborhood.

Agnes Fickera introduced herself and stated she has lived on 22nd Street for 26 years and
witnessed lots of development. Ms. Fickera stated that the church on Campbell Avenue has
been overlooked and like the school will be impacted by increased traffic resulting from the
development. Ms. Fickera stated there has been so much multifamily development in the
area of the proposed site that traffic and parking have become significant issues. Ms.
Fickera stated she does not support a 70-unit, four-story development in the neighborhood.

Ashley Bunch introduced herself and noted that the applicant appears to be intransigent
and unwilling to work with the neighborhood. Ms. Bunch stated that the applicant has
discussed the details of the project without addressing the concerns expressed by the
community. Ms. Bunch stated that the applicant is not responsive to the concerns. Ms.
Bunch stated that there is concern with the building height and privacy. Ms. Bunch
requested that the committee ask the applicant to adjust their plans in response to the
concerns that have been expressed by the neighborhood representatives.

Melissa Rhodes introduced herself as a resident of Peters View Neighborhood and
expressed concern with the increased density and the recent trend of gigantic residential
buildings that have been approved. Ms. Rhodes stated that the applicant has not
adequately addressed the increased traffic and with the school and church in the area there
will be significant problems. Ms. Rhodes said that the approval of large developments
without addressing increased traffic is a problem for residents. Ms. Rhodes stated that this
request has been rushed and there should be an informational meeting as part of the
review. Vice Chair Fischbach responded that PUD (Planned Unit Development) projects
have an information only meeting and rezoning requests only have one committee review
meeting, and this proposal is a rezone request.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 143
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

Royden Hudnall introduced himself as a resident east of the proposed site. Mr. Hudnall
stated he agrees with the neighbors regarding all the noted concerns including density,
height and traffic. Mr. Hudnall said the main concern he has is the precedent that this
development will have for the neighborhood and there are no four-story developments
south of Campbell Avenue and there is R-5 zoning in the area, but none are four stories.
Mr. Hudnall stated that the transition between R-3 zoning, and R-5 represents an excessive
increase that will be seen by other developers who will pursue similar actions on small lots
in the area. Mr. Hudnall stated this proposal reflects a drastic change that will undermine
the character of the neighborhood permanently if this project is approved. Mr. Hudnall
stated that he met with the developer, but he does not understand how drastic this change
will be to the community. Mr. Hudnall stated he has initiated a petition to block the proposal
that has over 160 signatures. Mr. Hudnall invited any meeting participants to sign the
petition if interested. Vice Chair Fischbach asked Mr. Hudnall about a message sent to
the developer, and if there was a request for an agreement regarding the proposal. Mr.
Hudnall stated that Mr. Kafka contacted him to see if there was an opportunity to come to
an agreement regarding support for the proposal. Vice Chair Fischbach asked if there was
a request for access privileges to the development. Mr. Hudnall stated that the proposal
would impact the adjacent home values and by having access to the pool may promote the
neighboring home values to offset negative equity. Vice Chair Fischbach asked if there was
a request for an easement. Mr. Hudnall stated that he asked for an agreement but not an
easement for neighborhood access but there was no conclusion.

Kathy DeLorey introduced herself and stated she has resided on Roma Avenue for 35
years. Ms. DeLorey stated that she greatly appreciates the area and neighbors who have
invested in the community. Ms. DeLorey stated the proposal is an invasion into the existing
neighborhood and asked the committee to deny the rezoning request, for all the concerns
voiced by the previous speakers. Ms. DeLorey asked that the presentation to the Planning
Commission on September 5, 2024, be rescheduled to allow more time for review and to
educate the neighborhood about the proposal. Mr. DeLorey stated that this proposal sets a
precedent to allow four stories on interior streets of neighborhoods and with narrow streets
on-street parking is not safe. Ms. DeLorey stated that four story complexes should be built
on collector streets not on internal streets. Ms. DeLorey stated that with the proposal
having rentals, this will be more tenants and cars than expected will increase traffic in the
area. Ms. DeLorey expressed that she was instrumental in the installation of speed humps
to reduce cut through traffic from 24th Street. Ms. DeLorey stated she has signed the
petition and is opposed to the proposed development.

APPLCIANT RESPONSE:

Ashley Marsh thanked the committee and members of the public for their feedback. Ms.
Marsh stated they sent out over 450 pieces of mail to provide as much notification as
possible. Ms. Marsh stated the proposal is not a PUD, just a regular rezoning case. Ms.
Marsh stated they have been answering questions from the neighbors to consider access
to some amenities and other possible agreements. Ms. Marsh stated that the proposal is an
infill site and is in a desirable area for multifamily residences and suitable for R-5

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 144
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

development. Ms. Marsh stated the site plan was carefully developed to respond to the
adjacent neighbors and provide landscaping and street frontage. Ms. Marsh stated that at
the neighborhood meeting a site line exhibit was presented to mitigate impacts to the
neighborhood. Ms. Marsh stated that a traffic study was conducted which determined that
the number of trips at different times was suitable and the study was conducted by an
engineer.

Committee Member Jurayeva stated that with the concerns regarding visibility to the
neighbors asked what has been done to address the angles of view. Ms. Marsh displayed
the site exhibit and responded that the placement of the building is approximately 100 feet
from the property line and there are six residences along the perimeter, so this reduces any
direct view lines.

Committee Member Augusta noted that a school was mentioned, and asked what is the
location and how site lighting would be managed. Ms. Marsh responded that the school is
one block north of the proposed site and site lighting will be down lit. Committee Member
Augusta asked what would be the height of the light poles. Ms. Marsh responded that the
poles would be in the parking lot and illuminate directly downward.

Vice Chair Fischbach asked what kind of school is located near the site. Ms. Marsh
responded that it is Camelview Elementary School, located one block to the north.

Committee Member Grace asked is there will be a wall or landscaping along the east
perimeter of the site. Ms. Marsh responded that there will be a 6-foot perimeter wall along
the eastern side of the site.

Committee Member Whitesell asked if the units would be rentals or owner occupied and if
the applicant knew what the surrounding residences were. Ms. Marsh responded that yes,
the proposed development would be rental units and the majority of the surrounding units
are multifamily condominiums which can be owned or rented. Committee Member Whitesell
commented that the city is pursuing a targeted housing quantity with various types and
asked what is the expected rental price range. Ms. Marsh responded that the rentals would
be available at market rate. Committee Member Whitesell stated that from the Phoenix
Housing Plan there is a distinguished quantity of the missing middle, including duplexes
and triplexes for workforce housing remains deficient. Committee Member Whitesell stated
that new developments need to focus on a variety of housing types and the proposed
location would be ideal for workforce housing rather than market rate housing.

Committee Member Schmieder asked about the communication with the adjacent
neighbors to accommodate amenities. Ms. Marsh responded the development is forward
thinking and the site has been adjusted closer to the streetscape and provides buffering
and landscaping. Ms. Marsh stated that there has been request for amenities such as a
pickleball court but to make the project work the requested density would be needed.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 145
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

Committee Member Guevar asked if the proposal is the tallest building in the
neighborhood. Ms. Marsh responded that it would be the tallest building south of Campbell
Avenue but not the tallest in the neighborhood. Committee Member Guevar asked if the
project is not approved could changes be made. Ms. Marsh responded that since it is an
infill site and there are fixed costs the project as presented is what works economically.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Chair Swart asked the committee if there were other questions and asked if there was a
motion for consideration.

MOTION:

Committee Member Jurayeva motioned to recommend approval of Z-74-24-6 per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen seconded the motion.

Committee Member Jurayeva stated that in 2017 condominiums in the area were priced
at $300,000 and now it is too expensive to buy a home and the proposal provides available
housing. Committee Member Jurayeva stated that housing needs to be available for
professionals working and commuting in the area and it is an infill site.

Chair Swart asked the committee if there was discussion on the motion before proceeding
to a roll call vote.

Committee Paceley asked if members could explain their vote.

Committee Member Whitesell commented that he received the proposal information and
drove the site and saw some of the homes in the area and did not see any problems
initially. Committee Member Whitesell stated he reviewed the R-5 zoning requirements and
certain things should be met in the district, and there should be continuity with the adjacent
neighborhood and the neighbors have been heard and this project is not an enhancement
to the area. Committee Member Whitesell stated that with a zoning comparison table,
including the R-3 requirements would have been helpful to see the difference with the R-5
requirements to allow them to evaluate what impact it would have on the surrounding
neighborhood. Committee Member Whitesell stated he will vote no but would entertain the
idea of having the applicant come back to the committee, and this presentation would be
for information only.

Committee Member Augusta stated that with the R-5 zoning the proposal does fit in the
area and there does need to be more housing in the city and votes yes.

Committee Member Grace stated he votes no on the motion. Committee Member Grace
stated that more housing is needed but going to four stories is not the only economically

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 146
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

viable reason and this was tried with a project on 44th Street and to fit in that neighborhood
two-story units were built to be consistent with that neighborhood.

Committee Member Guevar stated that there are other solutions to address the housing
issue that could focus on ownership not just rental property. Committee Member Guevar
stated that no comparison of the zoning was presented between R-3 and R-5 and there
maybe there is some creative opportunity to rethink the development to address density
and possibly build to three stories. Committee Guevar stated he votes no.

Committee Member Jurayeva stated that with her experience housing was a challenge in
2017 with the current housing market people cannot obtain housing. Committee Member
Jurayeva stated that nurses, teachers, and firefighters cannot afford to buy homes and
there needs to be an alternative to live and commute to work. Committee Member Jurayeva
stated people should have homes, so they do not have extended commutes to work and to
the downtown area. Committee Jurayeva said the traffic study shows that this project is
feasible and is in favor of this project moving forward.

Committee Member Paceley stated he does like the project, but it is not suitable for the
location and R-3 might be more applicable for this proposal. Committee member Paceley
stated he votes no.

Committee Member Schmieder stated she agrees with the neighborhood comments and
there should be more interplay with the neighborhood. Committee Member Schmieder
stated she votes no.

Committee Member Sharaby stated he has been on the committee for a while and favors
residential development and respects Committee Member Jurayeva. Committee Member
Sharaby stated that there are housing alternatives for professionals and the people have
expressed their passion for their neighborhood. Committee Member Sharaby stated that
too many projects get approved, and this proposal is not in the right location and the
applicant can go back and rethink their situation. Committee Sharaby stated he votes no.

VOTE:

7-9; motion to recommend approval of Z-74-24-6 per the staff recommendation fails with
Committee members Augusta, Bayless, Beckerleg Thraen, Garcia, Jurayeva, Fischbach
and Swart in favor; and Committee members Eichelkraut, Grace, Guevar, O’Malley,
Paceley, Schmieder, Sharaby, Whitesell and Williams opposed.

Chair Swart stated that the motion fails with seven votes in favor and nine in opposition.

No other motions were made on this item.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 147
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-74-24-6

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 148
ATTACHMENT D

ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-74-24-6
October 10, 2024

Camelback East Village Planning August 6, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 10, 2024
Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (1.82
acres)
Request To: R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) (1.82
acres)
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Location: Northeast corner of 21st Street and
Turney Avenue
Owner: 4401 Turney Villas, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham,
PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

The purpose of this addendum is to revise the site plan and elevations on file to reflect
updated documents submitted by the applicant.

The request is to rezone 1.82 acres located on the northeast corner of 21st Street and
Turney Avenue from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-5 (Multifamily Residence
District) for multifamily residential.

The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on August 6, 2024, and a
motion for approval failed with a 7-9 vote. Therefore, no recommendation was forwarded to
the Planning Commission.

On October 3, 2024 the applicant submitted a revised site plan and elevations. The revised
site plan depicts a reduction in the number of units from 75 to 64. The revised elevations
depict a reduction in building height along the Turney Avenue and 21st Street frontages
from four stories (48 feet) to three stories (approximately 38 feet). The applicant reduced
the number of units and the building height in response to community concerns regarding
compatibility with the surrounding area. Staff recommends additional stipulations to ensure
compliance with the reduced number of units and building height (see new Stipulation Nos.1
and 2).

Additional correspondence received after the publication of the staff report is also attached
to this addendum.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:

Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-74-24-6
October 10, 2024

Stipulations

1. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE 64.

2. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM 3 STORIES
AND 39 FEET WITHIN 37 FEET OF THE TURNEY AVENUE PROPERTY LINE
AND WITHIN 45 FEET OF THE 21ST STREET PROPERTY LINE.

3.1. The landscape setback along 21st Street shall be planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or
in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4.2. A minimum 40-foot building setback shall be provided along the north property
lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5.3. A minimum 5-foot sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 21st Street,
adjacent to the development.

6.4. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk, separated by a minimum 7-foot-wide
landscape area, shall be constructed on the north side of Turney Avenue. The
landscape area shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

7.5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way on 21st Street shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with
the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

8.6. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

9.7. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

10.8. Bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit, up to
a maximum of 50 spaces, and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs

Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-74-24-6
October 10, 2024

in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

11.9. A minimum of three of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

12.10. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station; a
tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels
to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

13.11. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

14.12. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

15.13. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.

16.14. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

17.15. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

18.16. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc.,
per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development
Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19.17. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the
property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.

20.18. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-74-24-6
October 10, 2024

21.19. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Exhibits
Site Plan date stamped October 3, 2024
Elevations date stamped October 3, 2024 (2 pages)
Correspondence (36 pages)

*(1(5$/127(6 (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216

($67%87+(586'5,9(
68,7(
6&2776'$/($5,=21$

3

:::.(1=<$5&+,7(&76&20

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

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

7851(<9,//$6
$3$570(176
7851(<9,//$6//&
1257+67675((7
3+2(1,;$5,=21$

522)

'(/7$5(9,6,216
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
127)25
&216758&7,21

/(9(/
352-(&7
,668('$7(
,668(1$0( 352*5(666(7
3/27'$7( $0

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

(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216

*(1(5$/127(6 (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216

($67%87+(586'5,9(
68,7(
6&2776'$/($5,=21$

3

:::.(1=<$5&+,7(&76&20

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

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

7851(<9,//$6
$3$570(176
7851(<9,//$6//&
1257+67675((7
3+2(1,;$5,=21$

522)

'(/7$5(9,6,216
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
127)25
&216758&7,21

/(9(/
352-(&7
,668('$7(
,668(1$0( 352*5(666(7
3/27'$7( $0

(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21B($67 $
(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216

Subject: FW: Phoenix, "R-3A" zoning refers to **Multifamily Residence Distri In Phoenix,

From:jpaletta1
Sent:Wednesday,October9,20242:03PM
To:TeleiaGalaviz;JohnRoanhorse
Cc:MelissaRhodes;KathyDeLorey;RussellBirkland
;Betsy&RobertGreenberg
Subject:Phoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistriInPhoenix,
Telesia:PLEASEPLACETHISINTHEFILEGOTTHEINDIVIDUALPLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEMBERS.InPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistriInPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistrict,Urban**.Thiszoning
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Telesia:

PLEASEPLACETHISINTHEFILEGOTTHEINDIVIDUALPLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEMBERS.

InPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**MultifamilyResidenceDistriInPhoenix,"RͲ3A"zoningrefersto**Multifamily
ResidenceDistrict,Urban**.ThiszoningdistrictisintendedtoallowformediumͲdensityresidentialdevelopment,such
asapartments,townhomes,orothertypesofmultifamilyhousing.

HerearesomekeycharacteristicsofRͲ3AzoninginPhoenix:

Ͳ**Density**:TypicallyallowsformoredenseresidentialdevelopmentcomparedtostandardsingleͲfamilyzones,
thoughnotasdenseashighermultifamilyzones(likeRͲ5).
Ͳ**HeightRestrictions**:StructurescanbetallercomparedtosingleͲfamilyzones,oftenwithalimitaround40feet,but
thiscanvarydependingonspecificregulationsandoverlays.
Ͳ**Uses**:Primarilyresidential,thoughsometimescomplementaryusessuchascommunitycenters,schools,orsmall
retailestablishmentsmaybepermittedundercertainconditions.
Ͳ**LotSize**:TheminimumlotsizeisgenerallysmallerthaninsingleͲfamilyzones,allowingformorecompactde

Subject: FW: UNCERTAINTY OF HIGHER R5 ZONING IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD

From: jpaletta1
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Teleia Galaviz
Cc: Melissa Rhodes ; Kathy DeLorey ; Kathryn
northcentralnews.net ; Russell Birkland ;
ryanworldtravel8@gmail.com; jpaletta1: cox.net
Subject: UNCERTAINTY OF HIGHER R5 ZONING IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD
Give definition of uncertainty that develops in a neighb orhood whe n high density rezoning is int oducted U ncertainty in a neig hbor hoo d following hig h-d ensity rezoning refers to the anxiety, unpredicta bility, and co ncer ns a mong resi dents, property

Give definition of uncertainty that develops in a neighborhood when high density rezoning is intoducted

Uncertainty in a neighborhood following high-density rezoning refers to the anxiety, unpredictability,
and concerns among residents, property owners, and stakeholders about the future of the area. This
uncertainty often stems from various factors, such as:

1. **Changes in Property Values:** Residents may be unsure whether property values will rise or fall
due to the new zoning rules, affecting their investments.
2. **Impact on Community Character:** People may worry about how the introduction of higher-
density buildings (e.g., apartments, condos) will alter the neighborhood's aesthetic, social, and cultural
atmosphere.
3. **Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns:** Higher density often brings more people, which can strain
existing roads, public services, schools, and utilities, causing apprehension about congestion or overuse
of infrastructure.
4. **Housing Market Shifts:** There may be concern over whether the rezoning will lead to a more
affordable or less affordable housing market, influencing who can afford to live in the area.
5. **Unpredictable Development Timeline:** Residents may be unsure when and how quickly new
developments will take place, disrupting the current way of life or bringing about sudden changes.

This collective uncertainty can create tension, resistance, or even conflict within the community as
different stakeholders react to the potential impacts of the rezoning.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

Subject: FW: Letter of opposition to rezoning case z-74-24”0

From: jpaletta1
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:40 PM
To: Teleia Galaviz
Cc: Kathy DeLorey ; Kathryn northcentralnews.net ; Melissa
Rhodes ; Russell Birkland ; Betsy & Robert Greenberg
; ryanworldtravel8@gmail.com; jpaletta1: cox.net
Subject: Letter of opposition to rezoning case z-74-24”0
TELEIA: P LEASE PLACE T HIS IN THE FILE GOR THE PLA NNI NG COMMISSION MEMBE RS Re zoni ng a prop erty from a medi um-de nsity multi family resid ential district to R5 (hig h-d ensity reside ntial district) can bring several cha nges to a neigh bor hoo d. Here
ZjQcmQRYFp fptBa nnerStart

TELEIA:

PLEASE PLACE THIS IN THE FILE GOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS

Rezoning a property from a medium-density multifamily residential district to R5 (high-density residential district) can
bring several changes to a neighborhood. Here are the key potential impacts on the certainty and character of the area:

### 1. **Increased Density and Population**
- **Impact**: R5 zoning allows for taller and larger buildings, which can accommodate more units and increase the
population density of the area.
- **Neighborhood Character**: The influx of more residents could lead to a busier, more urban feel in what might
have been a quieter or less densely populated neighborhood.

### 2. **Change in Building Size and Aesthetics**
- **Impact**: R5 zoning typically permits larger buildings, which could lead to taller apartment complexes or multi-
story residential buildings.
- **Neighborhood Character**: This may disrupt the architectural harmony of the neighborhood, especially if
surrounding properties are primarily smaller, single-family homes or lower-rise buildings.

### 3. **Traffic and Parking**
- **Impact**: Higher-density residential areas often bring more vehicles, which could increase traffic congestion and
the demand for parking.
- **Neighborhood Character**: Residents may experience increased noise, parking shortages, and overall street
congestion, which could reduce the quality of life for long-time residents.

### 4. **Public Services and Infrastructure**
- **Impact**: Increased population density will put more pressure on public services, such as schools, public
transportation, water, and sewer systems. The neighborhood might see upgrades to these services, but there may also
be growing pains during the transition.
- **Neighborhood Character**: The strain on services could affect the experience of current residents, but
improvements could attract more amenities and infrastructure upgrades.

### 5. **Property Values**
- **Impact**: Rezoning to a high-density residential district can increase property values due to the potential for
redevelopment, but it can also make properties more expensive, which might push out long-term residents.
- **Neighborhood Character**: This could lead to gentrification, changing the socio-economic makeup of the area and
potentially altering the neighborhood’s culture and identity.

### 6. **Commercial Development**
- **Impact**: High-density zones sometimes encourage nearby commercial developments to support the growing
population, leading to the opening of new businesses like shops, restaurants, and services.
- **Neighborhood Character**: This could make the area more vibrant and convenient, but it might also shift the
neighborhood from a residential to a more mixed-use environment.

### 7. **Social and Community Impact**
- **Impact**: Higher-density developments can change the social fabric of the neighborhood, with less familiarity
among neighbors due to an increase in transient or short-term residents.
- **Neighborhood Character**: Long-standing community bonds could be weakened as a result of more turnover and
less cohesion.

### 8. **Environmental Impact**
- **Impact**: More development may reduce green spaces, while also potentially increasing waste, noise pollution,
and reducing air quality.
- **Neighborhood Character**: A reduction in open space and greenery could detract from the neighborhood’s charm
and sense of tranquility.

Rezoning a property to R5 may bring growth and economic benefits, but it will also inevitably change the landscape and
lifestyle of the neighborhood. Understanding these factors can help residents and policymakers weigh the potential
benefits and drawbacks.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺĲϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓ϱ͓͑ϱ͕ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑ϙ

*RRGDIWHUQRRQ

,UHVLGHLQ3HWHU¶V9LHZVLWXDWHGGLUHFWO\ZHVWRIWK6WUHHW,DPZULWLQJWRH[SUHVVP\FRQFHUQV
ZLWKLWHP = WKH7XUQH\9LOODVSURMHFW:KLOH,DPQRWDJDLQVWUHGHYHORSPHQW,
VWURQJO\ RSSRVH VXEVWDQWLDO LQFUHDVHV LQ GHQVLW\ DQG KHLJKW ZLWKLQ HVWDEOLVKHG QHLJKERUKRRGV
7KHIROORZLQJSRLQWVDLPWRLOOXVWUDWHZK\WKHSURSRVHGGHQVLW\DQGVFDOHRIWKLVSURMHFWXQVXLWDEOH
IRUWKLVORFDWLRQDQGVHWVDGHWULPHQWDOSUHFHGHQFHIRUWKHVWDELOLW\RIQHLJKERUKRRGVWKURXJKRXW
WKHDUHD

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

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

7KLVSURMHFW,6ZLWKLQWKH6LQJOH)DPLO\$WWDFKHG'HYHORSPHQW2SWLRQ2UGLQDQFH*
DQG([SDQVLRQ%RXQGDULHVIRUWKH6LQJOH)DPLO\ 6)$ 'HYHORSPHQW2SWLRQ2UGLQDQFH
* 7KH IROORZLQJ LPDJH LOOXVWUDWHV WKH ERXQGDU\ RI WKH VLQJOH IDPLO\ DWWDFKHG
GHYHORSPHQW JUH\GDVKHGOLQH WKHDSSUR[LPDWHSURMHFWORFDWLRQ UHGGRW DQGWKHLQILOO
GHYHORSPHQWGLVWULFWSHUWKHJHQHUDOSODQ VROLGEODFNOLQH

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

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

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

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺĲϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓ϱ͓͑ϱ͕ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑ϙ

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

3URMHFW 1XPEHU 1RWHV
RI8QLWV
= /RFDWHG LQ D
7KLV QHLJKERUKRRG
3URMHFW RQORFDOVWUHHWV
= 2Q D &ROOHFWRU
URDG
= 2Q D 3ULQFLSDO
= $UWHULDOURDG
=
=
=
= /RFDWHG LQ D
= QHLJKERUKRRG RQ
D ORFDO VWUHHW
VLPLODU WR WKLV
SURMHFW

$OOWKHKLJKGHQVLW\SURMHFWVDUHORFDWHGRQFROOHFWRURUSULQFLSDODUWHULDOURDGVZKLFKDUHPRUH
FDSDEOHRIDFFRPPRGDWLQJKLJKHUWUDIILFYROXPHV

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

6LQFH 12VLQJOHIDPLO\ GHYHORSPHQW SURMHFWV KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG RU FRQVWUXFWHG LQ WKH
VDPH PLOH YLFLQLW\ 5HVLGHQWLDO SURMHFWV KDYH EHHQ OLPLWHGWR WKH UHQRYDWLRQ RU UHPRGHOLQJ RI
H[LVWLQJKRPHVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKFXUUHQW]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQV,QWKHSDVWWZR\HDUVDORQJWKHUH
KDYH EHHQ VL[ VXFK UHQRYDWLRQV RQ P\ VWUHHW 0DQ\ RI WKH KLJKGHQVLW\ GHYHORSPHQWV KDYH
DFTXLUHGDQGUHPRYHGH[LVWLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHVFRQGRVRUWRZQKRXVHVIURPWKHPDUNHW

$QRWDEOHLPEDODQFHLVHPHUJLQJGXHWRWKHH[FOXVLYHIRFXVRQODUJHPXOWLIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWV
ZKLFKXQGHUPLQHVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\IRUIDPLOLHVWRRZQHLWKHUGHWDFKHGRUDWWDFKHGKRPHVLQWKH
DUHD

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺĲϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓ϱ͓͑ϱ͕ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑ϙ

7UDIILF,PSDFWV
,WLVDFRPPRQDVVHUWLRQDPRQJYDULRXVSURMHFWVWKDWWKH\ZLOOKDYHQRRUPLQLPDOHIIHFWVRQORFDO
WUDIILF+RZHYHUWKHVHDVVHVVPHQWVRIWHQRYHUORRNWKHUHSHUFXVVLRQVRQDGMDFHQWORFDOURDGVDQG
PLQRUFROOHFWRUVWKDWXOWLPDWHO\EHDUWKHEXUGHQRIWKHDGGLWLRQDOWUDIILFJHQHUDWHG
7KH IROORZLQJ LV GHULYHG IURP WUDIILF GDWD JDWKHUHG E\ WKH &LW\ RI 3KRHQL[ IRU WKH WK 6WUHHW
,PSURYHPHQW3URMHFWZKLFKUHFHLYHG&LW\&RXQFLODSSURYDOLQZLWKGDWDFROOHFWLRQRFFXUULQJ
LQDQG$FFRUGLQJWRWKH&LW\RI3KRHQL[¶V3ODQQLQJDQG'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWUDIILFGDWD
VKRXOG QRW H[FHHG WZR \HDUV LQ DJH +RZHYHU WKH GDWD SHUWDLQLQJ WR WK 6WUHHW LV QHDULQJ D
GHFDGHROG6HHWKH6XPPDU\RIWK6WUHHW7UDIILF1XPEHUVEHORZ

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

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

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

7KH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKHVH ILJXUHV OLHV LQ WKH IDFW WKDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ YHKLFOHV DUH JHQHUDWHG
EHWZHHQ,QGLDQ6FKRRO5RDGDQG&DPSEHOO$YHQXHZKLFKFDQEHSUHVXPHGWREHSULPDULO\IURP
UHVLGHQWVXWLOL]LQJWK6WUHHW

7KHIROORZLQJWDEOHLVDVXPPDU\RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWWUDIILFQXPEHUVWKDWZLOOEHVHHQRQWKHORFDO
VWUHHWV
/RFDWLRQ $03HDN 303HDN
VW
6WUHHW 7XUQH\

7KH WUDIILF UHSRUW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKLV GHYHORSPHQW GRHV QRW SURYLGH D GHWDLOHG GLVWULEXWLRQ RI
WUDIILF KRZHYHU FRQVLGHULQJ WKH WUDIILF GHVWLQDWLRQV DORQJ WK 6WUHHW DQG WKH VXEVWDQWLDO
FRQJHVWLRQ RQ &DPSEHOO $YHQXH LW FDQ EH LQIHUUHG WKDW DW OHDVW RI WKH WUDIILF IURP WKH
GHYHORSPHQWZLOOOLNHO\EHGLUHFWHGWRZDUGVWK6WUHHW

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

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺĲϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓ϱ͓͑ϱ͕ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑ϙ

7KH IROORZLQJ WDEOH SURYLGHV D VXPPDU\ GHULYHG IURP &KDSWHU RI WKH &LW\ RI 3KRHQL[ 6WUHHW
3ODQQLQJ'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV

/RFDO6WUHHW 0D[LPXP 0D[LPXP
9HKLFOHVSHU'D\ 9HKLFOHVSHU+RXU
/RZ 'HQVLW\ 6LQJOH
)DPLO\+RPHV
+LJK 'HQVLW\ PRUH
'HYHORSHG
0LQRU &ROOHFWRU WR
6WUHHW 7+6WUHHW

,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWWKLVGHYHORSPHQWZLOOXWLOL]HRIWKHFDSDFLW\RIWKHWZRORFDOVWUHHWV
7KHFXUUHQWWUDIILFYROXPHGDWDKDVQRWEHHQGLVFORVHGVXJJHVWLQJWKDWWKLVSHUFHQWDJHPD\EH
KLJKHU

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

&KDSWHU7UDIILF,PSDFW$QDO\VLV6HFWLRQ$GGLWLRQDOIDFWRUVWKDWPD\QHFHVVLWDWHD7UDIILF
,PSDFW$QDO\VLV 7,$ RUDQH[SDQGHGVFRSHLQFOXGHFRQFHUQVRUFRPSODLQWVUHJDUGLQJH[LVWLQJ
QHLJKERUKRRGWUDIILF:HKDYHH[SUHVVHGRXUFRQFHUQVDQGKDYHEHHQYRLFLQJFRPSODLQWVDERXW
WKHWUDIILFVLWXDWLRQRQWK6WUHHWIRUVHYHUDO\HDUV:HDUHVWLOODZDLWLQJWKHLQVWDOODWLRQRIDOHIW
WXUQDUURZIRUVRXWKERXQGWUDIILFRQWKDW,QGLDQ6FKRRO5RDG

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

6HFWLRQ=RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQVWKHUHLVDODFNRIFRPSDULVRQEHWZHHQH[LVWLQJDQGSURSRVHG
FRQGLWLRQV

iŕŕĺŜĖťĖĺĲϙťĺϙÍŜôϙ¾ϱ͖͓ϱ͓͑ϱ͕ϙϙ
ièťĺæôŘϙ͗Ϡϙ͑͏͓͑ϙ

6XPPDU\
7KLVSURMHFWLVXQVXLWDEOHIRUWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQIRUVHYHUDOUHDVRQV
,WIDOOVRXWVLGHWKHGHVLJQDWHGPXOWLIDPLO\LQILOOERXQGDU\DQGLVLQVWHDGORFDWHGZLWKLQWKH
VLQJOHIDPLO\LQILOOERXQGDU\
7KHUHLVDGHILFLHQF\RIVLQJOHIDPLO\KRXVLQJDQGGHYHORSPHQWVOLNHWKLVRQHFRQWULEXWH
WRWKHHOLPLQDWLRQRIVXFKKRXVLQJ
7KH SURMHFW V FKDUDFWHU GHQVLW\ DQG VFDOH GR QRW DOLJQ ZLWK WKRVH RI FRPSDUDEOH
QHLJKERUKRRGVZLWKLQDRQHPLOHUDGLXV
7KH DQWLFLSDWHG LQFUHDVH LQ WUDIILF ZLOO DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW WKH TXDOLW\ RI OLIH DV SUHYLRXVO\
LQGLFDWHG
7KHSURMHFWFRQWUDGLFWVWKH&LW\¶VHVWDEOLVKHG*HQHUDO3ODQ'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV3ROLFLHV
5HVROXWLRQVDQG2UGLQDQFHV

, XUJH \RX WR UHMHFW WKLV SURMHFW DQG LQVLVW WKDW WKH GHYHORSHUV DGKHUH WR WKH H[LVWLQJ ]RQLQJ
UHJXODWLRQVRUSURSRVHDSURMHFWWKDWDOLJQVZLWKWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGFRQVLGHUDWLRQV$GGLWLRQDOO\
LWLVUHTXHVWHGWKDWD7UDIILF,PSDFW$QDO\VLVEHFRQGXFWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&LW\¶VJXLGHOLQHV
$SSURYLQJ WKLV SURMHFW ZLOO QHJDWLYHO\ LPSDFW DOO VXUURXQGLQJ QHLJKERUKRRGV DQG VLQJOHIDPLO\
UHVLGHQFHV

6LQFHUHO\

/HH%XVHQEDUN
(0RQWHFLWR$YH

3OHDVHSODFHWKLVLQILOHèº×ä

THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO SHOW THE
CONERNS WITH THE COMPROMISE

The community's feedback regarding rezoning case # Z-74-24 â€“ Turney Villas, located at the northeast corner of
Turney Avenue and 21st was not fully addressed by the development team. (Senior Land Use Planner
Gammage & Burnham). Despite our concerns, the changes made were minimal and did not align with our preferences:

1. We are not in favor of a large apartment complex in our neighborhood.

2. We would prefer a development that consists of owner-occupied units, which we believe would contribute to
increased property values.

3. The proximity of the property to the road, specifically 20 feet from Turney, creates a canyon effect that we find
undesirable.

The revised proposal, which includes reducing the building's height along Turney Ave and 21st St to 3 stories, is not
considered acceptable. We believe that maintaining a similar height to the two-story buildings across the street,
particularly on the south side of Turney, would be more appropriate. The reduction of 15% in the number of units, from
75 to 64, can be accomplished within the parameters of R3A zoning at a lower height.

We are aware that the Planning Commission is scheduled to review this case with the proposed revisions on Thursday,
October 10th, 2024, at 6 pm, under Item number 5. We would like to express that the current proposal does not reflect a
genuine compromise and may be perceived as an attempt to increase the property's value for future sale. If the intention
is to complete the project, we believe that a lower zoning designation could still facilitate development.

Granting approval for high density and height may set a precedent that could be attractive to developers eyeing
properties further south on 21st Street. We hope that our concerns are taken into consideration during the review
process.

John Paletta
East Morningside
Neighborhood Association

file:///S/Planning/Rezoning/Staff%20Reports/Working/2024/74-24-6/07_Correspondence/Opposition/text_0.txt[10/4/2024 10:26:18 AM]
They tried but really didn't give back much - Height - Density - Traffic are still a problem. I still want the R3 which is
doable but the developer is either greedy or want to resale once zoning is granted.

We have to make it very clear that if this go to city council weâ€™ll force a 3/4 vote and they will get nothing.

Melessia is right about the traffic add to the nightmare at 20th Street and problem with the school children.

Height is still a problem because it will set a president all along 21st Street.

We donâ€™t need a large apartment complex in our neighborhood - we could live with owner occupied at a longrt
density.

PLEASE PLACE IN FILE

file:///C/Users/052810/Documents/ProjectInformation/CamelbackEastVillage/Z-74-24-6%20Turney%2021St/text_01.txt[10/4/2024 10:46:04 AM]
From:jpaletta1
Sent:Saturday,August24,20245:40AM
To:TeleiaGalaviz
Subject:MinutesfromcompromisemeetingͲrezoningcaseZͲ74Ͳ24Ͳ6

COMPROMISEMEETING08/23/24

Duringourrecentmeetingon8/23/24,wewerejoinedbytheattorney,developer,andpropertyownerstoengagein
discussionsregardingapotentialcompromise.ThemeetingwasattendedbyKathy,Robert,Betsy,Melissa,Leah,Russ,myself,
Rich(developer),andMarsh(lawyer).

Inthemeeting,thedeveloperpresentedhiscase,citingtheimpactofCOVIDandtheeconomytojustifyhisrequestfora
higherzoning,whichcouldimpactourpropertyvalue.Thelawyeralsoreferredtostudiesindicatingthatsurroundingproperty
valuescouldpotentiallyincreaseby8to10percentduetotheproposedapartments.

RussKitkland,presidentoftheHOAfortownhomesonCampbell,providedrealͲlifeexamplescounteringthelawyer's
statement.Russhadconductedameetingwithpropertyownersinhiscomplex,andtheyvotedagainsttherezoning.

RobertGreenbergeloquentlyelucidatedthatthedevelopercouldcurrentlydeveloplowͲdensitymultifamilyunitsthatwould
betteralignwiththeestablishedneighborhoodunderthecurrentzoning,andthedeveloperagreed.

BetsyGreenbergcounteredthedeveloper'sassertionregardingthecommunity'ssupportfortheprojectbyhighlightinghow
theCamelbackVillagePlanningCommitteeopposedtherezoningwitha9Ͳ7vote,suggestingalackofoverallsupport.

Kathyadeptlyfacilitatedthemeetingandconveyedourconcernsregardingtraffic,height,anddensity.

Leahskillfullyaddressedtrafficconcernsandchallengedthelimitedscopeofthetrafficstudy.Sheproposedcomprehensive
trafficstudiesbythecityforthesurroundingareaandemphasizedthattheprojectmaynotbetermedasaninfill
development,asitdoesnotalignwiththecity'sdefinitionofinfill.

WeweresuccessfulinobtainingamuchͲneededcontinuance,providinguswithanothermonthtoorganizetheneighborhood.

Kathyproposedholdinganothermeetingtoreviewnewplanfromthedeveloper,suggestingtheuseoftheDevonshireSenior
CitizensCenter.

ItisessentialtokeepinmindthatthedeveloperrequestedthecontinuancetodemonstratetothePlanningCommissionthat
theyhaveengagedwiththeneighborhood.

WeneedtopreparefortheCouncilMeetingbyadvocatingforourstancetothePlanningCommission,draftingletterstothe
PlanningCommission,andinitiatingapetitionagainsttheproject.Thepetitionshouldinvolvestreetcaptainsfordistributing
flyersandgeneratingsupportthroughsignaturesonpetition.

ThesupermajorityfortheCityCouncilholdsgreatsignificance,asitwillnecessitatea2/3majorityvote.Propertyowners
within600feetoftheprojectcarryparticularweight.

WehaveatwoͲmonthtimeframetopreparefortheCityCouncilmeeting.ThismatterwillbebroughtbeforetheCityCouncil
becausewhoeverlosesatthePlanningCommissionwillappealtotheCityCouncil.

SentfromYahooMailforiPhone[mail.onelink.me] 1

Subject: FW: Rebuttal to Staff Report Z-74-24-6

From:jpaletta1
Sent:Wednesday,August21,20247:31PM
To:TeleiaGalaviz
Subject:RebuttaltoStaffReportZͲ74Ͳ24Ͳ6
PleaseDistributetoPlanningCommissionRebuttaltoStaffReportZͲ74Ͳ24Ͳ6EastVillagePlanningCommitteeDate:August6,2024PhoenixPlanningCommissionHearingDate:September5,2024RequestFrom:RͲ3(MultifamilyResidence)(1.റ82acres)
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

Please Distribute to Planning Commission
Rebuttal to Staff Report Z-74-24-6
East Village Planning Committee
Date: August 6, 2024
Phoenix Planning Commission Hearing
Date: September 5, 2024
Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence) (1.82 acres)
Request To: R-5 (Multifamily Residence) (1.82 acres)
Proposal: Multifamily Apartments
Location: Northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Ave
Applicant Representative: Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Staff Recommendation:
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"Create new development or redevelopment sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods' scale and
character and incorporate adequate development standards to prevent negative impact(s) on
residential properties."

Rebuttal:
The proposed development is out of character with our neighborhood, which currently does not have
any four-story apartment complexes south of Campbell Road. Allowing such a tall structure would set
a precedent that is inconsistent with the existing urban landscape and community makeup.

Zoning Integrity
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The proposal, as stipulated, will allow new residential development in a neighborhood with a range of
existing residential use types. As stipulated, the proposal will provide a large building setback along the
north property lines to buffer the use from the single-family residences to the north."
Rebuttal:
The proposed transition from R-3 to R-5 zoning represents a substantial increase in building height and
density. Such a transition risks disrupting the balance and integrity of our neighborhood, altering its
character in ways that are inconsistent with the existing urban fabric.

Compatibility with Neighborhood
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The proposal is a compatible use of equal size and type in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal
will also complement the area by providing a range of housing types by the Housing Phoenix Plan."
Rebuttal:

While there are apartment complexes zoned R-5 in our neighborhood, they are not four stories high
and have significant setbacks from the street and surrounding neighbors. This approach ensures
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and maintains the established character of the area.
The proposed zoning change represents an excessive increase in density that undermines the
suburban nature of our community and threatens to alter its character permanently.

Streetscape and Design Standards
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The proposal, as stipulated, incorporates streetscape and design standards to promote a pedestrian-
friendly environment along 21st Street and Turney that is compatible with the surrounding residential
development."
Rebuttal:
The proposed development introduces a four-story apartment complex south of Campbell Road, a
significant departure from the existing character of our neighborhood. The tallest structures in the area
are well below this height and are set back significantly from the street and neighboring properties. The
transition from R-3 to R-5 zoning introduces an excessive increase in density, which is inconsistent with
the neighborhood's character and could have a lasting negative impact.

BACKGROUND/ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Subject Site:
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The request is to rezone 1.82 acres located at the corner of 21st Street and Turney, from R-3 to R-5
for multifamily residential development."
Rebuttal:
The property owner prefers a development plan that prioritizes owner-occupied residences. The
surrounding neighborhood includes townhomes to the south and east, with owner-occupied units
extending to Campbell Avenue. This approach aims to create a cohesive community with long-term
residents, fostering greater stability and investment in the neighborhood.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning:
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"There are single-family and multifamily residences to the north zoned R-3 and to the south, across
Turney Avenue, is a multifamily development zoned R-5. To the west, across 21st Street, is a
multifamily residential development zoned R-5."
Rebuttal:
Most of the properties are owner-occupied, and the R-5 zoning for the existing developments resulted
from compromises with the city. For example, the R-5 zoning to the west was granted as part of a
compromise after the corner of 20th Street and Campbell was rezoned to Mid-Rise in 1978. The R-5
development is set back 30 feet with parking in the front, which reduces the impact of the three-story
buildings.
Similarly, the small R-5 parcel to the south was part of a compromise with the city and a developer who
initially sought to build 216 units on the entire block. Zoning case 104-96-6 was approved, resulting in
downzoning the parcel to R-2 for 65 townhomes to act as a buffer between the R-5 development and
the neighborhood. It was stipulated that two-story units would be constructed along the perimeter, down
Turney Avenue and south on 21st Street, with a small section of three-story units in the center.

General Plan Land Use Map:
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The General Plan Land Use Map depicts the site and the properties to the north, south, and east with
a designation of Residential 10 to 15 dwellings units per acre. The request to rezone the site to R-5 is

not consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Map; however, a General Plan Amendment is not
required as the site is under 10 acres."
Rebuttal:
When developing vacant or underdeveloped land in older parts of the city, it’s crucial to ensure that the
proposed development is compatible with existing development in the area and aligns with long-term
goals. Encouraging reasonable levels of increased intensity in development while respecting local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods is key.

Proposal:
Site Plan Overview:
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The site plan proposes a 75-unit multifamily residential development with an outdoor amenity area, a
pool, a clubhouse, and a gym. The plan includes 96 parking spaces located along the northern sides q
the building, secure bicycle parking within the residential building, and the northeast parking lot. Full
driveway access to the parking lots will be from 21st Street and Turney Avenue. Landscaping along
the northern property line will feature trees and shrubs to provide additional buffering along the property
perimeter. A detached sidewalk along Turney and an attached sidewalk along 21st Street will provide
pedestrian connections to the adjacent residential developments in the area. The sidewalks will include
trees for shade coverage. However, due to the need to seek variances for the patio projections within
the building, landscape setbacks along 21st and Turney Avenue, and a reduction in parking, the staff
does not recommend general conformance to the site plan."
Rebuttal:
It’s important to consider the following information regarding the 75-unit multifamily apartment
development: The inclusion of amenities such as the pool, clubhouse, gym, 96 parking spaces (ideally
150 spaces), bicycle parking, landscaping, and sidewalk contributes to the overall cost of the project.
The developer is advocating for the property owner to potentially reconsider the value of their property,
expressing concerns that adding apartments to the neighborhood may hurt property values and the
neighborhood's well-being, potentially resulting in increased profits for the developer.
However, due to the necessary variances for patio projections within the building, landscape setbacks
along 21st and Turney Avenue, and a reduction in parking, the staff does not recommend general
conformance to the site plan.

Findings:
John Roanhorse's Statement:
"The proposal is appropriate at this location and is consistent with the scale and existing area. The
proposal, as stipulated, will incorporate landscaping shading that will enhance the location, consistent
with General Plan goals and principles. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with
the Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030."
Rebuttal:
The proposal is not suitable for this location because the closest four-story structure is located half a
mile away on 20th Street and Highland. The R-5 zoning was granted through a compromise, and the
stipulated landscaping and shading won't be binding after the rezoning is approved. The Housing
Phoenix Plan goal is 88% satisfied and should not be a factor in this rezoning.

Conclusion:
This project to rezone a parcel in a residential neighborhood, which will negatively impact the property
owner, should be handled neutrally. The role of the city planner should be to provide a report of the
project strictly based on the zoning ordinances.
This staff report favors the application in tone and presentation, which is not the staff member's job.
The merits of the rezoning should be presented by the lawyers, not the city staff. When entering an

established residential neighborhood and requesting rezoning from R-3 to R-5, it’s essentially asking
the property owners to devalue their property to cover the costs of the proposed apartment complex.

This parcel could be developed under the current R-3 zoning, which would:
Provide the city with the units for the Housing Plan for 2030.
Ensure the developers achieve a profit on their investment.
Deliver a project compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Reduce traffic in the neighborhood.
Provide neighborhood sidewalks and landscaping.

Robert DeLorey
2201 E. Roma Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602.757.7324

August 15, 2024

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Rezoning Case: Z 74-24-6

I respectfully request you deny the rezoning application of case #Z 74-24-6 for the following reasons.

x Zoning - the transition from R-2 to R-5 will set the precedent for other developers to request rezoning
for other smaller apartment complexes along 21st Street between Glenrosa and Campbell.
x Utilities – The existing water and sewer pipelines from the 1950s supplying Turney Ave between 21 st
and 22nd streets are inadequate to accommodate the excessive burden of another 75 residences above
the current utility loading.
x Privacy – the loss of existing views from neighboring properties will be adversely affected by the height
of the development and will allow direct view into many homes and backyards.
x Visual impact - The rendering shows the building pushed out to the corner of 21 st Street and Turney
which will create a canyon effect at the corner.
x Height Discrepancy - The proposed 4 story development is exceedingly high, out-of-scale and out of
character in terms of its appearance compared with existing developments in the vicinity.
x Increased traffic and street parking - Our local streets are narrow and cannot be safely driven when
cars are parked on both sides of Turney Ave. Adding another 100+ vehicles will disrupt local traffic, and
will negatively affect Madison Camelview school ingress / egress when in session. The parking lot of
the proposed property will almost certainly be unable to accommodate the large number of tenant
vehicles; considering most residents will have roommates and multiple cars per unit.

Respectfully,

Robert F. DeLorey

Kathy DeLorey
2201 E. Roma Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602.725.0315

August 12, 2024

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Rezoning Case: Z 74-24-6

I am requesting you to deny the rezoning application of case #Z 74-24-6 for the following
reasons.

x Gammage & Burnham has not held neighborhood meetings to address the residents’
concerns.
x Privacy – the loss of existing views from neighboring properties will be adversely be
affected by the height of the development and will allow direct view into many homes,
and backyards.
x Visual impact - The rendering shows the building pushed out to the corner of 21 st Street
and Turney which will create a canyon effect at the corner.
x Height Discrepancy - The proposed 4 story development is unacceptably high, it’s over-
bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with
existing developments in the vicinity.
x Zoning - the transition from R-2 to R-5 will set the precedent for other developers to
request rezoning for other small apartment complexes along 21st Street between
Glenrosa and Turney.
x Increased traffic and street parking - our local streets are narrow and cannot be driven
safely when cars are parked on both sides even with the current population. This influx
of vehicles will not only disrupt our neighborhood but also pose safety risks especially
when Madison Camelview Elementary School is in session. Additionally, the parking lot
of the property will almost certainly be unable to accommodate the large number of
rental units; considering most residents will have roommates and multiple cars per unit.

Respectfully,

Kathy DeLorey

Royden Hudnall
2130 E Turney Ave #1
Phoenix, AZ, 85016
Roydenhud98@gmail.com
480.384.0336
8/7/2024

John Roanhorse
Planner Camelback East Village
200 W Washington St
Phoenix, AZ, 85003

Dear John,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning density increase that would
allow the construction of a four-story apartment complex in our neighborhood located at 4405 N
21st St, Phoenix, AZ 85016. This development raises several critical concerns that I believe
will adversely affect the character and quality of life in our community.

Privacy Concerns
The proposed four-story apartment complex will significantly invade our neighborhood's privacy.
The height of the building will allow direct views into many of our homes, backyards, and rooftop
decks, compromising the privacy that families in our community value and deserve.

Increased Traffic and Street Parking
The development of a high-density apartment complex will lead to a considerable increase in
traffic on our quiet residential streets. This influx of vehicles will not only disrupt the tranquility of
our neighborhood but also pose safety risks and elevate noise levels, impacting the quality of
life for all residents, especially when Madison Camelview Elementary School is in session.
Additionally, the parking lot of the property will almost certainly be unable to accommodate the
large number of units proposed, especially considering most residents will have roommates and
multiple cars.

Height Discrepancy
The proposed development is out of character with our neighborhood, which currently does not
have any four-story apartment complexes south of Campbell Rd that are not on a major road
like Indian School. Allowing such a tall structure would set a precedent that is inconsistent with
the existing urban landscape and makeup of our community.

Zoning Integrity
While there are apartment complexes zoned R-5 in our neighborhood, they are not four stories
high and they have significant setbacks from the street and surrounding neighbors, which fits
within the neighborhood. The transition from R-2 to R-5 zoning represents an excessive

John Roanhorse

From: Royden Hudnall
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 5:48 PM
To: John Roanhorse
Subject: Re: Opposition Letter: 4405 N 21st St
Attachments: Opposition Letter_ 4405 N. 21st St..pdf

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Hi John,

I sent you one of the drafts that I created for the opposition letter on accident. Attached is the final version I would like
to be added to the case file. Below is my original email as well. Please confirm receipt of this email. - Thank you!

Thanks for returning my call earlier, I appreciate your time. As mentioned, I attended the Village Planning Committee
meeting for Camelback East last night and spoke in opposition to the project located at 4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ
85016.

I have attached my letter of opposition to the project and kindly request that you distribute it to the members of the
committee.

Additionally, I would like to address concerns regarding the voicemail I left for Rick Kafka. Rick solicited me, asking if
there was anything he could do to help alleviate concerns from our HOA regarding the project. I suggested building a
community center and granting us permanent access to the development's amenities. As my property is directly
adjacent to the project, I am particularly concerned about the potential negative impact on our home values, even more
so than my fellow neighbors due to the proximity of the project. My suggestion was an attempt to proactively offset the
anticipated loss in equity if the project proceeds. If necessary, I can provide voicemails and phone records to
demonstrate that Rick solicited me.

Ultimately, I believe this was not a genuine effort to address our HOA and neighborhood concerns. Instead, I feel it was
an attempt to discredit me, the petition I created, and the legitimate concerns raised by my fellow neighbors and myself.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of my letter.

Best regards,

Royden Hudnall

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 5:36ථPM Royden Hudnall wrote:

Hi John,

Thanks for returning my call earlier, I appreciate your time. As mentioned, I attended the Village Planning Committee
meeting for Camelback East last night and spoke in opposition to the project located at 4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ
85016.

I have attached my letter of opposition to the project and kindly request that you distribute it to the members of the
committee.

Additionally, I would like to address concerns regarding the voicemail I left for Rick Kafka. Rick solicited me, asking if
there was anything he could do to help alleviate concerns from our HOA regarding the project. I suggested building a
community center and granting us permanent access to the development's amenities. As my property is directly
adjacent to the project, I am particularly concerned about the potential negative impact on our home values, even
more so than my fellow neighbors due to the proximity of the project. My suggestion was an attempt to proactively
offset the anticipated loss in equity if the project proceeds. If necessary, I can provide voicemails and phone records to
demonstrate that Rick solicited me.

Ultimately, I believe this was not a genuine effort to address our HOA and neighborhood concerns. Instead, I feel it was
an attempt to discredit me, the petition I created, and the legitimate concerns raised by my fellow neighbors and
myself.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of my letter.

Best regards,

Royden Hudnall

increase in density. Permitting such a drastic change undermines the suburban nature of our
community and threatens to alter its character permanently.

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

Ɣ The subject site is highlighted in Red
Ɣ The small apartment complexes are highlighted in Green
ż There are 12 parcels on this map, only two or three of these parcels would need
to be assembled in order to build a similar development as the one proposed at
4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ 85016

I would like to address the concerns raised by some council members last night regarding the
housing shortage in Phoenix. It is imperative to emphasize that the current need is not for
additional market-rate apartment developments but rather for more affordable housing options. I
further argue that the heart of a residential neighborhood in a middle class area is not the
correct place to put an affordable or government subsidized development and could adversely
affect the community's character and quality of life - even more than this development does.

The City of Phoenix has seen a significant increase in the construction of market-rate multifamily
properties over the last four years. However, despite this boom, there remains a critical shortage
of housing, particularly in affordable homes and workforce housing. According to recent data,
the problem is not a lack of apartment complexes; in fact, vacancy rates in market-rate
apartments have been steadily rising. In Phoenix “occupancy [is] down 80 basis points
year-over-year through March, to 93.1%.” “Yardi Matrix forecasts that Phoenix’s inventory will
grow by 3.3% this year, ranking ninth for projected inventory expansion among the country’s top
30 metros.” (Matrix Phoenix Multifamily Report). The real issue lies in the shortage of affordable
and workforce housing options. These lower rent options are where the gap exists, and this is
where the focus should be.

In the past five years, Phoenix has experienced a significant boom in multifamily development,
adding nearly 14,000 new apartment units in 2023 alone, a 90% increase from the previous
year (RentCafe) (Rose Law Group Reporter). This surge places Phoenix among the top U.S.
cities for new apartment construction, alongside major metros like New York and Miami. Despite
this rapid growth, the city's housing shortage persists, particularly in affordable housing. Arizona
ranks among the five worst states for affordable housing availability, with a critical shortfall for
low-income renters (UMOM). Addressing this issue requires shifting focus from market-rate to
affordable housing developments to meet the actual needs of the population.

The "Matrix Multifamily Phoenix Report" from June 2024 highlights that while Phoenix has
added numerous market-rate units, the occupancy rates in these new developments are
declining, pointing to a surplus in the market-rate segment. “Nearly 92% of the [multifamily
construction] volume underway was in Lifestyle communities, followed by fully affordable assets
(7.0%)” (Matrix Phoenix Multifamily Report). Additionally, according to UMOM, the Phoenix
Metro Area faces a significant shortfall in affordable housing, with a deficit of over 250,000
affordable and available rental homes for low-income renters (UMOM). This underscores the
urgent need to address the affordable housing crisis rather than adding more market-rate units,
which do not meet the current demand for lower-income housing.

Community Petition Against Zoning Density Increase

In response to the proposed zoning density increase, I initiated a community petition to gather
support and express our collective concerns. The petition has garnered 169 signatures from
neighbors and other members of the public who share our apprehensions about the potential
impacts of the development. This strong community response highlights the widespread
opposition to the project and underscores the significant concerns regarding privacy invasion,
increased traffic, and the setting of a precedent for unreasonable height and density in our
neighborhood. The support for this petition demonstrates our community's commitment to
preserving the character and quality of life in our area, reinforcing the need for careful
consideration by the zoning board. I have included the link to the petition below:

Petition: Opposition to Zoning Density Increase at 4405 N 21st St, Phoenix, AZ 85016

Conclusion

In conclusion, I strongly urge the zoning board and other decision makers to reject the proposed
zoning density increase. The privacy, safety, and character of our community are at stake, and it
is essential to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood for current and future residents.
Addressing the real housing needs of Phoenix, focusing on affordable and workforce housing,
will better serve our city's long-term interests and maintain the quality of life we cherish.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Royden Hudnall

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Support for Rezoning Request Z-74-24-6
Northeast Corner of 21st St and Turney Ave.

To Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Village Planning Committee and the Planning
Department:

I am writing in support of the proposed multifamily community at the northeast corner of 21st
Street and Turney Ave. I have lived in this area for many years and believe that the proposed
development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, replacing what is an outdated
property and bringing investment into the community.

In addition, I do not agree with the statement that the proposed apartment community will have a
negative impact on the surrounding area. The proposed location is in an area where there are
several existing multifamily properties, some of which already have R-5 zoning. The proposed
placement of the building makes sense for the property and was clearly designed to be as far
away from the surrounding properties as possible. I do not believe that the proposed height or
density is out of character for what is an urban area and would like to see the request approved
for this property.

Sincerely,

Chad Lafferty
2019 E Campbell Ave #105
Phoenix, AZ 85016

1 PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ©2023 CBRE, INC.
From: Courtney Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:14 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Dear Planning Commission Members,

My name is Courtney and I’m reaching out as a resident of the City of Phoenix and Arizona native to support
the Turney Villas project Z-74-24-6 on the October 10 Planning Commission agenda.

According to a new report by the Morrison Institute [morrisoninstitute.asu.edu], rents in Arizona increased by
72% from 2010 to 2022. This has put tremendous stress on middle and low-income workers in our state. In
August, almost 8,000 Maricopa county residents [azcentral.com] faced eviction filings. Homelessness has also
increased and is at the highest level since 2010. In 2023, there were 14,237 people who experienced
homelessness, including over a thousand older adults.

Arizona’s housing crisis requires ongoing investments in housing, and this project will bring 64 new units to a
neighborhood that already supports a mixture of density and types of housing.

This project is a much needed source of housing for the City of Phoenix. While this one project will not solve
the crisis, we must do everything we can to ensure that every Arizonan can be at home and live a stable,
purposeful life.

For these reasons, I support this project.

Sincerely,
Courtney Anderson
2202 N 28th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008

--
Courtney Anderson
email: cmande56@gmail.com
phone: 602.980.3125

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Support for Rezoning Request Z-74-24-6
Northeast Corner of 21st St and Turney Ave.

To Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Village Planning Committee and the Planning
Department:

I am writing in support of the proposed multifamily community at the northeast corner of 21st
Street and Turney Ave. I have lived in this area for many years and believe that the proposed
development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, replacing what is an outdated
property and bringing investment into the community.

In addition, I do not agree with the statement that the proposed apartment community will have a
negative impact on the surrounding area. The proposed location is in an area where there are
several existing multifamily properties, some of which already have R-5 zoning. The proposed
placement of the building makes sense for the property and was clearly designed to be as far
away from the surrounding properties as possible. I do not believe that the proposed height or
density is out of character for what is an urban area and would like to see the request approved
for this property.

Sincerely,

Kevin McDaniels
Resident
4114 N. 28th St
Phoenix, AZ 85016

)5+//)/'?/"?#:#+01-#/5?#125-#/5?
??4? )/'50/?52##6? +002?
(0#/);?? ?

#? 711025?&3? ?
026(#45?0.#2?0% 6?/"?82/#

#2?09/!)?-/?0 )/40/?/"?-#+ !*?45?)+,'#?+//)/'?0--)55##?

I !6IE<1?17I ?/1>I5'??'>I6GI>A::8?I!?I?/'I78?I%8<7' ?I!7&II 'GIC'7A'I'H8717.I!>'I8 I ID/1%/I>''4>I?8I<'H87'I?/'I:<8:'<@GI-86I
I?8II A5?1)#615GI 8717.

I8D7II<'>1I '7?1!5I17C'>?6'7?I:<8:'<@1'>I&1<'%?5GI!%<8>>I-86I?/'I>A$2'%?I>1?' I I0!C'I!I>1.71+%!7?I
17?'<'>?I17I ?I 1>I!<'!I!7&I!6I'F%1?'&I?8I>''I7'DI17C'>?6'7?I17I ?/'I!<'!I '>:'%1!55GI?8I ?/'I >A$2'%?I
:!<%'5I?/!?I1I A7&'!5I1>I
78?I 875GI !7I !::<8:<1!?'IA>'I ,&'C'58:6'I :5!7I D155I'7/!7%'I ?/'I >?<''?>%!:'I!7&I$<17.I6A%/7''&'&I16:<8C'6'7?>I 514'I ?/'I
!&&1?187I8(I 1&'D!54>I!587.I?/'I:<8:'I!I7'1./$8
I!6I*6151I '&I>1?'I:5!7I!7&I!::<'%1!?'I?/!?I?/'I!:!I%58>'I?8I?/'I
%8='%!:'I$'?D''7I?/'I
$A15&17.I!7I 617'I!7&I6GI7'1./$8<>I:<8:' I I!5>8I?/174I?/!?I?/'I:<8:8>'&I0'1./?I!7&I&'7>1?GI
!<'I!::<8:<1I ?'I!7&ID155I78@I7'.!?1C'5GI16:!%?I?/'I!<'!I!>I6!7GI8(I?/'I7'!<$GI:<8:'I!<'I!5<'!&GI
>?8I>1615!
/'I:<8:8>I &I%866A71?GI1>I!7I'F%'55'7?IA>'I8(I?/'I:<8:'I:<83'%?ID155I$'7'+?I
?/'I%866AI 1?GI!7&I1>I!::<8:<1!?'I)9I58%!?187I

=>?
14'I'7'I

]ƱÅƲŶƈǔMWǔNHOSǔ

(ƉǇǔō¸ǔ lË)ǃǔ
mă|ĜÞÆǔĝǔaƽĄĸŎė3ǔb#ŏŵ-ĞƊǔ
PIJǔyŷƋǔz}Ìß 3ğǔuƌŘƍǔ
n%Ġ*Ǆ<ǔřàǐĹǔ

^ƭƮ ġƎáĢYǔh0&ǔ ĺ~& ǔ
qdZǔ ¡ǑĻģâǔ ǔ{ǔXTAQUBVǔ

c1ǔiŚCǔ rļĤ'śŸ¢ǔ

gǔǁãŹÍǔƏĽǔǅŐ1źǔ-ǈǔŻƐŭǔƳľ27ǔƑ ǔ4Îǔƾ£ǔŜ¤¹ŝǔs#ǒä ǔ!Dǔ

żǔĥǔĦŞǔĿºǔǔ».,Ǐǔ¥ƒƴ ħƓǔåƔ%æǔƕ'ǔ! ąĀǔeŽƖǔxçđ ǔ èǔǔǉéÇǔ/Ůǔ
5ÏĨǔ RKLǔőŀŒĆ¦ǔ(ƗÐêĩǔ oÑĪëǆ[ǔ8)Ēćǔ ŗē*ƘǊǔ žƙÄǔÒƵǔ ìǔǔĘþşǔ Eǔ f0Šǔ/īǋǔ¼ǔƶšǔ
ŁœĈ§ǔƚÓǔłƛǔŃ½ǔÔƜ¨ǔíǔǔ Ţ©Ɲǔ2 ǔ ĉń=ǔ6Õǔîę Ĭǔ¾ǔƷĖǔǔ.ǔǔƞǔǔ
ůţªƟ«ǔ 5ŅǔÖŔǔ Ěā$ǔŰĭƠſǔÂÃŌŴĊ¬Fǔ

v×ǔŤņƀ®ǔť ÿ¯ơǔï¿ǔŕŦŇƿ°">ǔýǔ ƢðƸƣ$ǔ6 ǔ4Øǔ ű Ƥ+ĮǔÀǔƥÙñǔòěċǔóǔǔƦôį,ǔ
İǀõŲŊıĲƧ ČĔǎǔųƁĳöč±ǔÁÚ÷ ǔ

_ŧøÈĎǌ?ǔ ùƨǔ+Ƃǔ ƹŨÉ²ǔƩÛƪǔ7ÜǔũǓŋúĴ ǔǔ;ǔ Ūň8Gǔ

³ƃŖ´ưƺďǍ@ǔ

jĵÊû ǔkǂĶūǔ
`ƻķƫǔ ÝüĐ"9Ƅ\ǔwǔ ǔpµĂǔ
tƼƅƯĕ¶Ŭ:Ɔǔ ŉƇƬ·ǔ

C4;(C8%1AC9!C:+?&C )5'2,@C-B63C C C >="*./ $<#70C

rî¾ ĔUĔO()RĔ
`£ďĔĔkÎ¤ĆĔ
l¸¥Ä ĔĔc'¹Ù¿&Ĕd8ï ðĔ
PL(ĔuEĔ vy-¦ĔsñÜòĔ
mÅ§ćĔ]wĔYVMNQĔ
^èZĔiÏÆĔo "6 Ĕ
*f[Ĕ*đÕÇ# Ĕa\ĔxĔXSC)TDWĔ
e ĔjÝFĔp ":GĔ
hĔĄ#Ĕ= ĔĈÞĔÀĊĔéæ Ĕ>ÚóĔ!Ø$ĔĔÐĂĔß ĔqĒÖ¨ĔbzHĔ
gĔÁ4ċĔ©ýĐ êĔÑĔn. ÈªĉĔ Ĕ| Ĕ5Ĕ -ºĔ«ĔĔ ôĔ+5ÍĔ{Ĕ;" Ĕþ9 &Ĕ¬»É ĔÒ!Ĕ
ëÿČĔ?ĔÂÊĔ ,ĔõĔ Ĕ à$}öĔáĔ Ĕ6Ĕ8ÃĔ%IĔ
t¡ĔÛçÓì,Ĕ% · ~<@Ĕ®Ĕ'Ĕ Ĕ:â¯< Ĕ7 Ĕ;.Ĕ# / 9/ ĔË Ĕą°¼Ĕ÷ã0>øĔùĔ
¢Ĕ7 %&04Ĕ!Ĕ=Ĕ±3ĔÌĔĔ Ā ú2AĔ'² ×3½čĔ ³2Ĕ JĔ
_+Ôä´ ĎBĔµĔ1íĔāå ĔûĔü¶ Ĕē 1 ĔĔ$ăKĔ

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Support for Rezoning Request Z-74-24-6
Northeast Corner of 21st St and Turney Ave.

To Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Village Planning Committee and the
Planning Department:

My name is James Sean McGettigan. I am writing in support of the proposed multifamily
community at the northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Ave.

I have lived in this area for many years for the vibrant neighborhood it is and continues to evolve
into being. The proposed development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood,
replacing an outdated property and bringing much needed investment into the community. I
would love this area to evolve similar in nature to 16th Street and Highland or 36th – 40th Street
and Campbell with areas for fitness studios, coffee shops, co-working spaces, etc. providing
additional areas to gather and feel the vibrancy.

I do not agree with the statement that the proposed apartment community would have a negative
impact on the surrounding area and wish it incorporated more of the surrounding properties into
the design and build. The proposed location is in an area where there are several existing
multifamily properties, some of which already have R-5 zoning. The proposed placement of the
building maximizes the property’s highest and best use while clearly designed to minimize the
impact on the surrounding properties.

I do not believe that the proposed height or density is out of character for the area and would like
to see the request approved for this property and welcome continued development and
investment in the area.

Best Regards,

James Sean McGettigan

ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 10, 2024

ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-74-24-6 (Continued from September 5, 2024)
Location: Northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Avenue
From: R-3
To: R-5
Acreage: 1.82
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Applicant: Ashley Z. Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Owner: 4401 Turney Villas, LLC; 2118 Turney, LLC;
Charles E. Goodwin, III
Representative: Ashley Z. Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations (per the Addendum A Staff Report).

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 8/6/2024 No Recommendation (motion to recommend approval failed).

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-74-24-6, per the
Addendum A Staff Report.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is appropriate at this location and is consistent with the scale and existing
uses in the surrounding area.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, will incorporate landscaping and shading
that will enhance the location, consistent with General Plan goals and principles.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with the Housing Phoenix
Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.

Stipulations:

1. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE 64.

2. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM 3 STORIES AND
39 FEET WITHIN 37 FEET OF THE TURNEY AVENUE PROPERTY LINE AND
WITHIN 45 FEET OF THE 21ST STREET PROPERTY LINE.

3.1. The landscape setback along 21st Street shall be planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4.2. A minimum 40-foot building setback shall be provided along the north property
lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5.3. A minimum 5-foot sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of 21st Street,
adjacent to the development.

6.4. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk, separated by a minimum 7-foot-wide
landscape area, shall be constructed on the north side of Turney Avenue. The
landscape area shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large
canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

7.5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way on 21st Street shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with
the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

8.6. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.

9.7. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

10.8. Bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit, up to
a maximum of 50 spaces, and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

11.9. A minimum of three of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

12.10. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
13.11. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle (EV)
Installed Infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

14.12. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

15.13. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to minimize
maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape
irrigation.

16.14. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf areas
to reduce water waste.

17.15. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by structures
or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a combination
thereof.

18.16. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., per
the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development
Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19.17. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the
property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.

20.18. In the event archaeological materials are encounter during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

21.19. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.

ATTACHMENT F
163-22-127 163-22-028
163-22-150 163-22-174 163-22-183 163-22-0
163-22-177

163-22-153 163-22-053
163-22-228
163-22-034
163-22-045
163-22-002
163-22-159 163-22-162 163-22-173 163-22-207
163-22-037 163-22-1
163-22-039 163-22-040 163-22-181

163-22-156
163-22-151
163-22-052
163-22-166 9 163-22-044
163-22-16
163-22-160

CAMPBELL AVE

163-31-093

163-31-177 163-31-178 163-31-179
163-31-233 163-31-232 163-31-229
163-31-082 163-31-075
163-31-083 163-31-076

163-31-221
163-31-231 163-31-228

22ND ST
163-31-251 163-31-234

163-31-316 163-31-317
163-31-320 163-31-084 163-31-077
163-31-235 163-31-230 163-31-227
163-31-319
163-31-085 163-31-078
163-31-321
163-31-383 163-31-086 163-31-079

163-31-451
163-31-389
163-31-008 163-31-246
163-31-080

163-31-215
163-31-247
163-31-257 163-31-087 163-31-236 163-31-240 163-31-245
163-31-081

\\one\pdd\Shared\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-74-24\Z-74-24_Three_Quarter_Vote_Map.aprx
163-31-327 163-31-094 163-31-244
163-31-237 163-31-241
163-31-258

163-31-092 163-31-091 163-31-090 163-31-089 163-31-088
163-31-394

163-31-265
163-31-010

163-31-239 163-31-242
163-31-238 163-31-243
163-31-261 163-31-406

21ST ST
163-31-337
163-31-330
163-31-405

163-31-447 163-31-331
163-31-267
163-31-006C
163-31-013D
163-31-408
163-31-013A 163-31-013C

163-31-533
163-31-313 163-31-273

163-31-272
163-31-409

163-31-349 163-31-419 163-31-538
163-31-410 163-31-100 163-31-101

163-31-356
163-31-534
163-31-015 163-31-099 163-31-102

163-31-421 163-31-537
163-31-007A
163-31-348

163-31-351
163-31-098 163-31-103
163-31-280

163-31-535 163-31-536
163-31-097 163-31-104

163-31-281
163-31-347

163-31-014B 163-31-014A
163-31-096 163-31-105
163-31-414 163-31-095 163-31-106
163-31-012
163-31-539

TURNEY AVE
163-31-467

163-31-471
163-31-475 163-31-472

163-31-469
163-31-149 163-31-148
163-31-466
163-31-036B
163-31-470 163-31-468
163-31-150 163-31-147
163-31-532 163-31-151 163-31-146

163-31-452 163-31-480 163-31-485 163-31-152 163-31-145

163-31-043D
163-31-528

163-31-037
163-31-036F
163-31-454 163-31-486

163-31-478
163-31-477

163-31-479
163-31-153 163-31-144
163-31-453 163-31-527

163-31-494
163-31-154 163-31-143
163-31-455

NO NAME
163-31-526
163-31-460 163-31-523 163-31-484 163-31-155 163-31-142
163-31-456 163-31-503

163-31-522
163-31-156 163-31-141
163-31-461 163-31-495
163-31-157 163-31-140

163-31-507
Legend 163-31-458 163-31-498
163-31-158 163-31-139
163-31-036D

163-31-509
163-31-463 163-31-499

163-31-512
Zoning Petition Area 163-31-459 163-31-501 163-31-514
163-31-159 163-31-138
163-31-500 163-31-160 163-31-137
Proposed163-31-038H
Amendment Area 163-31-161 163-31-136

163-31-049
Lots/Tracts/Condos # of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 16/64 = 25%
163-31-175 163-31-174 163-31-173 163-31-172
163-31-038F 163-31-135

163-31-171 163-31-170 163-31-169 163-31-168 163-31-167
163-31-166 163-31-165 163-31-164 163-31-163 163-31-162
163-31-038J % Area = 1.03 ac./7.07 ac. = 15%
163-31-134
Signed Petition
3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED 163-31-133
163-31-040B 163-31-040A 163-31-038D 163-31-132

Petition Verification Map

I 0 100 200 Feet 197
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept. 10/18/2024
for Z-74-24-6
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-74-24-6 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN
LOCATION (Continued from FILE)
September 5, 2024) opposition x applicant
Northeast corner of
21st Street and
Turney Avenue

APPEALED FROM: PC 10/10/2024 2121 East Glenrosa
Phoenix, AZ 85016

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 11/13/2024 John Paletta
HEARING 602-300-4067
Jpaletta1@cox.net

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Request for 3/4 vote: Opposition to rezoning case Z-74-24-6 and secure a
three-quarter vote of Council.

RECEIVED BY: Julie Loewen RECEIVED ON: 10/17/2024

Joshua Bednarek Camryn Thompson
Tricia Gomes Daniel Inglese (Attorney)
Racelle Escolar GIS
Sarah Stockham Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Adam Stranieri Village Planner - John Roanhorse
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
Heather Klotz

REVISED 10/16/2024 VCM

ATTACHMENT G

Racelle Escolar

From: jpaletta1
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 12:59 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Kathy DeLorey; Melissa Rhodes; Russell Birkland; Betsy & Robert Greenberg
Subject: Re: Opposition letter regarding Z-74-24-6 - R5 Misrepresented

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

PLEASE PLACE IN CITY COUNCIL FILE

It seems there were some concerns about the representation of the R5 zoning during the planning commission meeting.
It was perceived that the commission and the planning department may have favored the developer's interests. Some
specific points of concern include the emphasis on the suitability of R5 for the site, overlooking traffic concerns, and the
lack of consideration for the negative impact of R5 on the area.

It was stressed that the R5 zoning was part of a compromise from a previous rezoning, and it's important to provide
detailed explanations to the council and during office visits regarding the reasons for having this higher zoning.

It was also mentioned that the lawyer's presentation on the R5 zoning was misleading. During the council hearing, it was
suggested that speakers provide a detailed explanation of the history to ensure a comprehensive understanding.

In conclusion, the choice between R3 and R5 zoning for a multifamily development on 1.82 acres will depend on factors
such as desired density, community context, and local zoning regulations. R5 zoning typically allows for higher density
and taller buildings compared to R3, which might be more suitable for urban or higher-density suburban areas.

John Paletta
2121 East Glenrosa Ave
Phoenix, Arizona

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

On Friday, October 11, 2024, 12:53 PM, jpaletta1 wrote:

PLEASE PLACE IN CITY COUNCIL FILE

It seems there were some concerns about the representation of the R5 zoning during the planning
commission meeting. It was perceived that the commission and the planning department may have
favored the developer's interests. Some specific points of concern include the emphasis on the suitability
of R5 for the site, overlooking traffic concerns, and the lack of consideration for the negative impact of
R5 on the area.

It was stressed that the R5 zoning was part of a compromise from a previous rezoning, and it's
important to provide detailed explanations to the council and during office visits regarding the reasons
for having this higher zoning.

It was also mentioned that the lawyer's presentation on the R5 zoning was misleading. During the
council hearing, it was suggested that speakers provide a detailed explanation of the history to ensure a
comprehensive understanding.

In conclusion, the choice between R3 and R5 zoning for a multifamily development on 1.82 acres will
depend on factors such as desired density, community context, and local zoning regulations. R5 zoning
typically allows for higher density and taller buildings compared to R3, which might be more suitable for
urban or higher-density suburban areas.

John Paletta
2121 East Glenrosa Rd

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

Racelle Escolar

From: jpaletta1
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 1:38 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Kathy DeLorey; Melissa Rhodes; Russell Birkland; ryanworldtravel8@gmail.com; Betsy &
Robert Greenberg
Subject: Letter of Oppositon - Rezoning Case Z-74-24-6

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

PLEASE PLACE IN COUNCIL FOLDER FOR 21/12/24

At the recent Planning Commission meeting on 10/10/24 regarding Rezoning Case Z-74- 24, it was observed that
individuals from outside the immediate area were brought in to advocate for the R3 to R5 zoning change. These
individuals seemed unfamiliar with the specific details of the case, and it was noted that the rezoning primarily
impacts the local neighborhood rather than individuals residing four miles away on 28th Street.

Furthermore, during the hearing, there were speakers who voiced support for the rezoning in the context of
affordable housing, although this aspect was not directly relevant to the rezoning case at hand.

The manufactured nature of this support was unfortunate and detracted from the substantive discussion of the
hearing.

Best regards,
John Paletta
2121 East Glenross Ave

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

Racelle Escolar

Subject: R5 MISREPRESENTATION

From: jpaletta1
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Kathy DeLorey ; Kathryn northcentralnews.net ; Melissa
Rhodes ; Russell Birkland ; ryanworldtravel8@gmail.com;
Betsy & Robert Greenberg
Subject: R5 MISREPRESENTATION
6 - R5 MIS REP RESENTSTI ON Dear P hoenix City Coun cil: I am writing to expres s our con cern s regarding the re cent pre sentation of the re zoni ng case Z -74 -24 -6 at the 10/ 10/2 024 Plan ning Commissi on
ZjQcmQRYFp fptBa nnerStart

Subject: Concerns Regarding Rezoning Case Z-74-24-6 - R5 MISREPRESENTSTION

Dear Phoenix City Council:

I am writing to express our concerns regarding the recent presentation of the rezoning case Z-74-24-6 at the
10/10/2024 Planning Commission Meeting. It has come to our attention that there were some
misrepresentations made during the presentation, particularly in the portrayal of R5 zoning in our
neighborhood.

We believe that there was a lack of transparency in the presentation, as certain crucial historical details
regarding the R5 zoning were omitted. It is important to note that these details were extensively discussed
during the compromise meetings with the lawyer and developer, but unfortunately, they were not conveyed to
the Planning Commission.

Our neighborhood has a long history of grappling with rezoning issues, dating back to 1986 (Z-210-86). After 11
years of negotiations, a compromise was reached in 1994, resulting in the downzoning of the entire block
between Glenrosa and Turney and 21st Street and 22nd Street to R2, with the southeast corner designated as R5
as part of the compromise. Specific stipulations were put in place for two- story structures along Turney Ave and
21st Street and three stories in the center of the project.

Furthermore, the northwest corner has a history of rezoning dating back to 1978, with the corner of 20th Street
and Campbell initially zoned as an 8-story Midrise. Subsequently, through negotiations with the city, it was
rezoned to R5 with specific restrictions, including no traffic entering the neighborhood and a 30-foot setback
behind the parking lot.

We are concerned that the use of these two parcels of R5 to justify the current rezoning is misleading and does
not fully capture the complexities and history of the zoning in our neighborhood.

We hope that these concerns can be addressed and that all relevant information will be accurately presented to
the Council on 11/12/24.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John Paletta
2121 East Glenrosa Ave
Phoenix, Arizona. 85016
602 300 4067
jpaletta1@cox.net
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

John Roanhorse

From: Leah Adelman
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 4:55 PM
To: John Roanhorse
Subject: Concern Regarding the Impact of Proposed Project on My Property Value

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Dear Committee Members,

I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Leah Adelman and I am writing as a first-time homeowner who
lives adjacent to the proposed project. While I understand that development is often necessary for community
growth, I am deeply concerned that this particular project will negatively impact the value of my home and the
quality of life in my neighborhood.

As a homeowner, this investment is significant to me, both financially and emotionally. The proximity of the
project to my property raises serious concerns about increased noise, traffic, and potential environmental
effects, all of which are likely to drive down the value of my home. This is particularly troubling as I had hoped
this would be a place where I could establish long-term roots in a stable and growing community.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider the current scope of the project and take into account the potential harm it
could cause to homeowners like myself, who will be directly affected. Please consider alternative solutions or
mitigations that could alleviate these concerns, ensuring that this project supports both the growth of the
community and the wellbeing of its residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns.

Sincerely,
Leah Adelman
2130 E Turney Ave #1 Phoenix AZ 85018

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2025-01-22 complete

1. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on August 26,

Item text

Supporting documents

2. ¶ Summary

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Our Lady of Czestochowa Roman Catholic

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Our Lady of Czestochowa Roman Catholic

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Liquor License - Grab N Go Market - District 1

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Stop N Shop Market - District 1

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Congregation Kol Ami - District 2

Item text

Supporting documents

8. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Free Serbian Orthodox Church St. Nicholas -

Item text

Supporting documents

9. ¶ Liquor License - Barro's Pizza - District 3

Item text

Supporting documents

10. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Chinese Week - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

11. ¶ Liquor License - Rico Arizona - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

12. ¶ Liquor License - Marisco Boys - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

13. ¶ Liquor License - Wilderness Miracle Mile - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

14. ¶ Liquor License - Wilderness Miracle Mile - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

15. ¶ Liquor License - La Consentida Tacos & Sushi - District 5

Item text

Supporting documents

16. ¶ Liquor License - 12 West Brewing - District 6

Item text

Supporting documents

17. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Pride Incorporated - District 8

Item text

Supporting documents

18. ¶ Salt River Valley Water Users Association dba SRP

Item text

Supporting documents

19. ¶ State of Arizona, Arizona Department of Agriculture Pest Management Division

Item text

Supporting documents

20. ¶ Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink QC

Item text

Supporting documents

21. ¶ Amend Ordinance S-50960 for Grant of an Irrigation Easement for Development

Item text

Supporting documents

22. ¶ Acceptance and Dedication of Easements and a Deed for Public Utility, Roadway

Item text

Supporting documents

23. ¶ Acceptance of Easements for Drainage and Water Purposes (Ordinance S-51603)

Item text

Supporting documents

24. ¶ Plumbing Services, Including Rooter and Drain Cleaning Contract - IFB 18-123 -

Item text

Supporting documents

25. ¶ Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services - RFA 15-210/GS35F-

Item text

Supporting documents

26. ¶ Authorization to Enter into Contracts for Eviction Legal Services Qualified

Item text

Supporting documents

27. ¶ Children's Museum of Phoenix Expansion - Architectural Services - AR00000022