A proposed apartment complex on the northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney will be heard by the Planning Commission Sept. 5, and it is bringing neighbors together in opposition (photo by Kathryn M. Miller).
Two area developments were presented to the Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) Aug. 6 that brought neighbors out in force. While different in their makeup, both are reflective of the balancing act of meeting the city of Phoenix’s 2020 Housing Phoenix goal — creating or preserving 50,000 housing units by 2030 — while also meeting the needs of established neighborhoods.
The guideline to achieve that balancing act can be found in the city’s 2025 General Plan (PlanPHX 2025), which will go to voters for approval this November. Under the heading of “Certainty & Character” on page 189 the plan reads, “Every neighborhood and community should have a level of certainty. Ensure that development, redevelopment and infrastructure supports and reinforces the character and identity of each unique community and neighborhood.”
Up first at the Aug. 6 meeting was a Planned Unit Development (PUD), case number Z-58-23, request to rezone 2.01 acres at the northwest corner of 18th Place and Indian School Road to allow mixed-use multifamily residential with ground floor commercial.
Representing the owner/developer, Del Pueblo Communities, Jason Morris presented a case that was different than what is currently available to the public — as well as to the VPC members, who requested an updated narrative be made available.
The original proposal called for 91 units. As presented, the project includes 76 market rate units: 60 one-bed, 13 two-bed and 3 three-bed. The four-story building will be 56 feet in height with retail frontage, a project amenity and leasing office. The project site is challenging due to its proximity to SR-51, which creates a right-turn only situation on Indian School Road — a major concerns for neighbors who say that traffic will end up in the neighborhood.
For the past 11 years, Melissa Rhodes has lived in the Peters View neighborhood, which is immediately north of the proposed project and runs from SR-51 to 20th Street, Indian School Road to Campbell.
“I love this neighborhood. I don’t ever want to move,” Rhodes said. “I grew up in Arizona and this is the first place that I’ve ever lived where I actually know my neighbors. My neighbors have lived here for decades. We check on each other. That’s the kind of neighborhood this is.”
She also has been one of the most vocal opponents of the project as proposed.
“The main thing for the neighborhood is traffic,” Rhodes said. “If they’re going to be putting 50-60 cars a day on these streets…the streets can’t handle them. The neighborhood was never designed for that much traffic.” She added that the only traffic lights out of the neighborhood are at 20th Street or Campbell and both streets are already saturated, and area traffic congestions has only increased in the past 10 years.
“These projects, if approved, will be adding traffic into this area, but the city is not even addressing the congestion,” Rhodes said. “To not do that and potentially approve two more projects with major, major traffic…it’s poor planning and I think the city should take some responsibility for that. The city is embracing development but not addressing the infrastructure needs at these developments.”
Aside from some technical questions about fire department access and parking, another issue is privacy in a neighborhood that consists of mostly single level, single family homes built in the 1940s. She suggests that a smaller development of two-story townhomes with owners investing in the neighborhood would be a much better fit.
A proposed development at the northwest corner of 18th Place and Indian School Road has neighbors concerned (photo by Kathryn M. MIller).
“These developers are trying to set a precedent in Central Phoenix by building four-story apartments in the middle of established neighborhoods,” Rhodes said. “We’d love to see this kept a neighborhood. We are not opposed to reasonable development that fits the character of the neighborhood. It’s just that this is not it.”
This case was presented to the VPC as “information only,” and the schedule for a recommendation hearing is still to be determined. Find information at www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases.
Less than a mile north and across 20th Street from Rhodes is John Paletta, who has lived in his home for 45 years.
“When we first moved in, this was all a patchwork of single-family homes,” Paletta recalled. “It was kind of quaint… and it had kind of a country look. It had a laid-back feel.”
But things began to change in 1986, when an apartment development was proposed at 21st Street and Glenrosa. The neighborhood successfully fought that development by coming to a compromise that would allow 65 condos instead — a fraction of which were built. Then in the 1990s, a new development was approved with the higher density R-5 zoning.
The VPC heard case number Z-74-24, a request to rezone 1.82 acres at the northeast corner of 21st Street and Turney Avenue from R-3 to R-5 zoning for a multifamily residential development. In this case, a four-story, 48-foot, building would include 75 market rate apartments — 10 studio, 23 one-bedroom and 42 two-bedroom.
Presenting on behalf of the owner, 4401 Turney Villas, LLC, Ashley Marsh made the argument that their proposal is directly across the street from other R-5 zoned property, that the existing buildings are old and that the space is underutilized.
Back in the ‘90s, “They came through and they compromised, they downzoned. And now they are using the R-5 to beat us up for this,” Paletta said. “But what they don’t talk about is all the density [three story] was put in the middle and all the two-story was put along the outside, which was part of the compromise.”
The neighbors were pretty happy with the end result, Paletta said — it is set back from the street with lush landscaping surrounding it, and the process of fighting for what they felt fit in the neighborhood helped bring the neighbors together.
But this new proposal wants to bring four stories into an already dense neighborhood that tops out at three, “the next closest four-story is on Highland and that’s a hotel,” and it will replace existing residential. There is recently upgraded 16-unit single level apartment/duplex that another resident called “cute as hell” at the VPC meeting as he wondered why it needed replaced; there are also two four-bedroom single-family homes that would be destroyed to make way for the 75-unit apartment complex.
And, again, traffic is a major concern. There are two schools in the neighborhood, and much of the traffic will feed out onto 20th Street. Added to that, yet another proposed development (WaterView on Highland, PUD case Z-41-23) is just a few blocks north at the southeast corner of 21st Street and Highland. That development is proposing 149 “attainable” rental units.
The VPC voted against a motion to recommend the Turney project for approval by a vote of 7-9. One reason cited: the General Plan. At the beginning of every staff report where the Planning & Development Department is recommending approval, they include a General Plan Conformity statement. The 21st Street and Turney project goal: “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.”
“When you read the goals that are established in the staff report, none of those goals are being met,” said VPC member Larry Whitesell after the meeting. “By this proposal, it is not compatible with the neighborhood for height or setback or density. I feel the developer needs to take a hard look at the proposal and see if there can’t be some accommodation to actually meet the goals that are stated in the staff report.”
The longtime Phoenix resident points to the Housing Phoenix Plan as an additional guideline.
“They specifically are seeking homes of different types — apartments, single family, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, condos,” Whitesell said. “They are also hoping to get a variety of housing in the three major categories that they describe as far as price range — affordable, workforce and market rate.”
He points to the city’s quarterly Housing Phoenix progress report, the most recent of which states that 44,677 dwellings have been created or preserved. Of those 44,677 units, 24,493 of them are market rate — “luxury housing.” Ten thousand are workforce housing and 10,000 are affordable housing.
“This proposal would replace a few apartments, but also single-family homes and duplexes,” Whitesell added. “So again, we’re overbalancing on the apartment housing type. And not paying enough attention to the other housing types, what people have called the missing middle.
“Even though the city has reached 89 percent of its Housing Phoenix Plan doesn’t mean that Phoenix can take its foot off the gas pedal. We’ll always have more people coming in that will be looking for housing, but we should be able to be a little more discretionary on the types of housing, the intensity of the housing that is going in, especially in these established neighborhoods. That’s where I think more control could be found or provided by the city — to protect our existing neighborhoods.”
While neighbors were pleased that the VPC voted in their favor, they still have to contend with the Planning Commission, which will hear the case Thursday, Sept. 5. They will once again show up to make their opposition heard, but Paletta wants the city to know that they are “not just saying no, no, no to development.”
“We have negotiated in the past. We’re not going anywhere, and we’ll sit down and talk to you. And if you can put something in here that’s compatible with the neighborhood, we’re fine.”
The staff report for this case and others can be found at www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports. Find information about upcoming public meetings online at www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.
