Council modifies rezoning at 21st Street and Tourney to R4A with stipulations after contested hearing

The Phoenix City Council held a public hearing on a rezoning request for the northwest corner of 21st Street and Tourney Avenue and voted to deny the applicant’s R5 proposal as filed and instead approve R4A with modified and additional stipulations.

Applicant representative Ashley Marsh described a 1.8-acre parcel (1.5 developable acres) currently containing 16 apartments and two single-family homes and presented a revised proposal that reduced the project from an initial 75-unit, four-story design to a 64-unit design and reduced building height to what was described as 38 feet along some frontages. The applicant said traffic analysis showed the project would add about 132 new daily trips and approximately 0.5% of total peak trips on the adjacent streets; staff and Planning Commission recommended approval and the applicant said it had more than 170 letters of support and held multiple neighborhood meetings.

Neighbors and community groups opposed the rezoning, arguing it would erode neighborhood character, strain infrastructure (particularly 20th Street during rush hour), replace existing lower-cost two‑bedroom units and single-family homes with higher‑priced units, and set a precedent for higher density in a primarily working-class neighborhood. Opponents accused the applicant of misrepresenting comparable developments and of selectively placed traffic counts; they urged denial or a downzone to R4 with stronger stipulations to protect neighbors.

Councilman Robinson moved to deny Z-74-24-6 as filed and approve R4A with stipulations outlined in the planning memo dated January 15, 2025, adding modifications and three stipulations: a minimum 40-foot building setback along the north and east property lines; no rooftop decks on the north and east perimeters; and a requirement that the developer notify specified neighbors by mail 15 days prior to any Planning Hearing Officer request to modify stipulations or any zoning adjustment request. The motion also required the developer to work with the Street Transportation Department traffic services division to submit petitions for speed humps on specified blocks, with the developer funding the improvements if approved, and to provide proof of mailing and certified delivery for notices.

Council members asked staff to confirm existing memo stipulations and the added restrictions; staff confirmed the height/setback controls already existed in the memo and that Councilman Robinson’s motion added rooftop restrictions and expanded notice and traffic mitigation requirements. Several council members praised neighborhood engagement; others underscored the need for quality housing. The motion passed on roll call.

The council’s action alters the zoning approval sought by the applicant, preserves additional setback and rooftop constraints intended to reduce visual and noise impacts on adjacent single-family homes, and ties traffic mitigation petition costs to the developer if the neighborhood petitions meet speed-hump program approval requirements. The record shows the council directed the developer to complete petitioning and to fund approved improvements prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy.