Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
72 Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-35-20-8 - Approximately 340 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue (Ordinance G-6841)
A vacant lot is much worse for the community than traffic concerns, here's a quote from a study on the matter,
"Vacant land was perceived to influence community well-being by decreasing residents’ control over neighborhood life, fracturing ties among neighbors, raising concerns about crime and safety, and exerting a negative financial strain on the community."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665973/
Or everyone can keep holding out for a perfect scenario that's never coming.
I oppose this and am requesting a Denial of both Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8 or at the very least a continuance. This is not what the community needs or wants.
We do not need this overpriced high density housing that will push out the natives in this area that can't afford this and will ultimately be the ones hurt.
I urgently request that the City Council DENIES item 71 & 72 today. I live in the adjacent neighborhood. This project is NOT in line with the MUA and General Plan approved by residents. Approval would not only set a terrible precedent for future developments, it would increase traffic and parking concerns in the surrounding neighborhoods. The SMVPC carefully considered the issue and recommended denial. Please allow our Village governance systems to guide you on projects like this!
I oppose Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8 for the following reasons:
The density is much too high for this area of the city
This project does not conform to the General Plan, setting a precedent that will negatively impact the South Mountain Village well beyond these 17 acres.
Documented neighbor opposition to this project is vast.
There are more appropriate alternative options available for this land with a much lower density.
Thanks, Blake
As a nearby property owner please deny this request and respect the vote of the SMVPC who know the area and recognize what is a benefit to this community. The proposal is too dense and will bring additional traffic into an already saturated area. It also sets a precedent of undesired development in the area.
I am in opposition of both Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8.. It completely goes against all previously established zoning when the baseline area master plan was created. I, along with many others fought very hard against this type of development years ago when I served on the South Mtn VPC. This should have been dead on arrival. This is sub-standard, low quality housing. Don't kid yourself this is slum city waiting to happen.
We must create pathways to power that dismantle and transform the settler-colonial state that concentrates power in an institution. This Community Benefit Agreement is the first step of many to ensure directly affected peoples are not just involved in community decision-making, but have ownership over the decision-making process.
I 100% support this project. All over the Valley we are in need of affordable housing. It will be nice to see this dirt lot turn into a community. I know there are lots of folks opposed but something is going to be built here someday and it might as well be now and it should be affordable housing. This is what Phoenix needs most.
Strongly oppose Z-35-20-8. There are already over 8 high density properties (apartments/condos/townhomes) within 2 miles of this proposed project and two more in development. The applicant has continued to ignore the attempts of the affected neighborhoods to work together and reach an acceptable compromise.
Deny and STOP the abandonment of the little MUA that is left in this city.
As a close neighbors to this proposal, we request DENIAL of both Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8. This project is NOT in keeping with the land use and zoning as outlined in the Baseline Master Plan. Sets negative precedent for the area. Developer made 0 effort to work w/ surrounding community in opposition. Be aware, those who have registered in support also appear to be/be related to property owner.
Thank you, Tanis & Ambrose Earle
Bartlett-Heard Ranch Neighborhood
3602 E Vineyard Rd, Phx. 85042
I am opposed to this development's current plan due to the high density. I am asking for you to deny this proposal and ask the developer to work with the community and design a more acceptable density of housing that re-aligns with the original plans of the protected community that your voters have approved ( MUA , BAOD, Baseline Area Master Plan, South Mountain Village Character Plan).
As a neighbor, I oppose items 71 & 72 and recommend denial. The proposal does not satisfy the MUA Overlay. It is much too dense and offers no density transition. The project owners and developers have not addressed the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. Please respect the prior denial decision of the SMVPC. Do not allow this experimental housing project to be constructed at this site. Allowing a non-conforming development will set a precedent, negatively impacting the South Mountain Village.
I would LOVE to live in one of these BEAUTIFUL homes when they are finished. It's Awesome that the City of Phoenix Planning Commission and the City of Phoenix planning Department have Approved this beautiful development. I am in full support of this development and would love to see the City of Phoenix give the final approval for such a much needed BEAUTIFUL Development.
Opposed to this project, like most of those who actually live in this community. Has anyone else noticed that most of those who have registered support have the same last name as the property owners?
Deny this PUD. This PUD would set a negative precedent for the area.
I oppose due to issues with Density and Density Transition that this project will bring.
The project will not safeguard the community's Certainty and Character per the voter-approved General Plan (MUA , BAOD, Baseline Area Master Plan, South Mountain Village Character Plan).
A vacant lot is much worse for the community than traffic concerns, here's a quote from a study on the matter,
"Vacant land was perceived to influence community well-being by decreasing residents’ control over neighborhood life, fracturing ties among neighbors, raising concerns about crime and safety, and exerting a negative financial strain on the community."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665973/
Or everyone can keep holding out for a perfect scenario that's never coming.
I oppose this and am requesting a Denial of both Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8 or at the very least a continuance. This is not what the community needs or wants.
We do not need this overpriced high density housing that will push out the natives in this area that can't afford this and will ultimately be the ones hurt.
Thank you.
I urgently request that the City Council DENIES item 71 & 72 today. I live in the adjacent neighborhood. This project is NOT in line with the MUA and General Plan approved by residents. Approval would not only set a terrible precedent for future developments, it would increase traffic and parking concerns in the surrounding neighborhoods. The SMVPC carefully considered the issue and recommended denial. Please allow our Village governance systems to guide you on projects like this!
Continuance or outright Denial for the case
I oppose Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8 for the following reasons:
The density is much too high for this area of the city
This project does not conform to the General Plan, setting a precedent that will negatively impact the South Mountain Village well beyond these 17 acres.
Documented neighbor opposition to this project is vast.
There are more appropriate alternative options available for this land with a much lower density.
Thanks, Blake
As a nearby property owner please deny this request and respect the vote of the SMVPC who know the area and recognize what is a benefit to this community. The proposal is too dense and will bring additional traffic into an already saturated area. It also sets a precedent of undesired development in the area.
Opposed. This is not a good fit for this area of South Mountain Village.
I am in opposition of both Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8.. It completely goes against all previously established zoning when the baseline area master plan was created. I, along with many others fought very hard against this type of development years ago when I served on the South Mtn VPC. This should have been dead on arrival. This is sub-standard, low quality housing. Don't kid yourself this is slum city waiting to happen.
We must create pathways to power that dismantle and transform the settler-colonial state that concentrates power in an institution. This Community Benefit Agreement is the first step of many to ensure directly affected peoples are not just involved in community decision-making, but have ownership over the decision-making process.
I 100% support this project. All over the Valley we are in need of affordable housing. It will be nice to see this dirt lot turn into a community. I know there are lots of folks opposed but something is going to be built here someday and it might as well be now and it should be affordable housing. This is what Phoenix needs most.
Strongly oppose Z-35-20-8. There are already over 8 high density properties (apartments/condos/townhomes) within 2 miles of this proposed project and two more in development. The applicant has continued to ignore the attempts of the affected neighborhoods to work together and reach an acceptable compromise.
Deny and STOP the abandonment of the little MUA that is left in this city.
As a close neighbors to this proposal, we request DENIAL of both Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8. This project is NOT in keeping with the land use and zoning as outlined in the Baseline Master Plan. Sets negative precedent for the area. Developer made 0 effort to work w/ surrounding community in opposition. Be aware, those who have registered in support also appear to be/be related to property owner.
Thank you, Tanis & Ambrose Earle
Bartlett-Heard Ranch Neighborhood
3602 E Vineyard Rd, Phx. 85042
I am opposed to this development's current plan due to the high density. I am asking for you to deny this proposal and ask the developer to work with the community and design a more acceptable density of housing that re-aligns with the original plans of the protected community that your voters have approved ( MUA , BAOD, Baseline Area Master Plan, South Mountain Village Character Plan).
This project is NOT in keeping with the land use and zoning as outlined in the Baseline Master Plan.
As a neighbor, I oppose items 71 & 72 and recommend denial. The proposal does not satisfy the MUA Overlay. It is much too dense and offers no density transition. The project owners and developers have not addressed the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. Please respect the prior denial decision of the SMVPC. Do not allow this experimental housing project to be constructed at this site. Allowing a non-conforming development will set a precedent, negatively impacting the South Mountain Village.
Strongly oppose
Please Deny this request. It is bad for South Phoenix.
I would LOVE to live in one of these BEAUTIFUL homes when they are finished. It's Awesome that the City of Phoenix Planning Commission and the City of Phoenix planning Department have Approved this beautiful development. I am in full support of this development and would love to see the City of Phoenix give the final approval for such a much needed BEAUTIFUL Development.
Please deny.
Opposed to this project, like most of those who actually live in this community. Has anyone else noticed that most of those who have registered support have the same last name as the property owners?
Deny this PUD. This PUD would set a negative precedent for the area.
I oppose due to issues with Density and Density Transition that this project will bring.
The project will not safeguard the community's Certainty and Character per the voter-approved General Plan (MUA , BAOD, Baseline Area Master Plan, South Mountain Village Character Plan).