Attachment B - Staff Report - PHO-1-24--Z-37-07-2.pdf

N SCOTTSDALE RD

N SCOTTSDALE RD

Mod

Del
Del
Mod
Mod

Del
Del
Mod
Del

RE-24
      SWEETWATER AVENUE
Z SP 11 93
C-1
RE-35
DREYFUS AV
ASTER DR
SWEETWATER AV
LARKSPUR DR
400
0
400
200
Feet
*   Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
APPLICANT'S NAME:
DATE:
REVISION DATES:
REQUESTED CHANGE:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
*   UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
FROM:
TO:
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT:
NORTH
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
SHEA BLVD
!
Z-37-07
APPLICATION NO.
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
04-03-2007
3.68 Acres
Z-37-07
RE-24, (3.68 ac)
 Q31-44
K12
2 
R-O, (3.68 ac)
KEVIN KIRKWOOD
RE-24
R-O
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
(N:\GIS_Team\Zoning\sketch_maps\2007\Z-37-07.mxd) 4/3/2007

REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION  
Byron Easton, Planner III, Hearing Officer  
Teresa Garcia, Planner I, Assisting  
 
April 17, 2024 
 
ITEM NO: 1 
 
 
DISTRICT NO. 2 
SUBJECT: 
 
 
 
Application #: 
PHO-1-24--Z-37-07-2 
Location: 
Approximately 480 feet south of the southwest corner of 
Scottsdale Road and Sweetwater Avenue 
Zoning:  
R-O 
Acreage:  
1.17 
Request: 
1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general 
conformance to the site plan date stamped February 9, 
2009. 
2) Request to delete Stipulation 4 regarding cross access 
and parking agreements. 
3) Request to delete Stipulation 5 regarding Scottsdale 
Road improvements. 
4) Request to modify Stipulation 7 regarding building height.
5) Request to modify Stipulation 8 regarding rear building 
setbacks. 
6) Request to delete Stipulation 10 regarding street 
improvements. 
7) Request to delete Stipulation 11 regarding 
archaeological assessment. 
8) Request to modify Stipulation 12 regarding a requirement 
to obtain final site plan approval. 
9) Request to delete Stipulation 13 regarding walls along 
the rear property line. 
10) Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 3, 6, 9 and 15. 
Applicant: 
David E. Richert 
Owner: 
 
Linda Cohn, Beldar Properties Arizona, LLC; Steven R. Bund
Representative:
David E. Richert 
 
ACTIONS: 
 
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took 
the case under advisement. On May 21, 2024, the Planning Hearing Officer took 
the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed and 
approval with modifications and an additional stipulation.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 2
 
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Paradise Valley 
Village Planning Committee chose not to review the application. 
 
DISCUSSION: 
 
David Richert, 9219 East Trailside View, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258, asked if 
there were any members of the public in the hearing in opposition for the case. 
 
Byron Easton, Planning Hearing Officer, confirmed there were members in 
opposition. 
 
Mr. Richert stated the only people they have had discussions with regarding the 
case were in support and he was surprised there was opposition. He gave an 
overview of the site and the history of the properties. He stated that some of the 
proposed stipulations are difficult to meet as the 5 properties on the lots are not 
working in unison. He stated that during the time of rezoning, building permits 
were issued for Lot 5. He stated a letter from 2009 from the former Planning and 
Development Department Director, Alan Stephenson, was in the file; indicating 
lawful permits were issued and the detached garage was permitted as an 
accessory to the home as established under residential zoning regulations. He 
stated he thought the property owner for Lot 3 went through the building permit 
process and obtained a Certificate of Occupancy but may have to go through the 
process. He stated that staff has not been able to produce any site plan approval 
for an operating daycare or for the business on Lot 3. He stated the original 
property owner who initiated the rezoning no longer has any ability to do 
anything. 
 
Mr. Easton asked Mr. Richert to describe the purpose of this PHO case. 
 
Mr. Richert stated the reason for the PHO was 1) there was a 24-month time limit 
placed on applying for building permits and 2) the individual businesses have 
operated without this knowledge and are trying to comply so they can obtain their 
Certificate of Occupancy. 
 
Mr. Easton asked what the specific land use of Lot 5 was and how long has it 
been in business. 
 
Mr. Richert answered that a spa business has been operating for approximately 
10 to 12 years. He stated that the owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 were amazed there 
was anything other than what was on their properties when they closed their 
sales. He stated he submitted two site plans for the properties on Lots 4 and 5. 
He stated the residential garage on Lot 5 was permitted and given a Certificate of 
Occupancy. He stated that Mr. Stephenson
on Lot 5, which is shown on the site plan, and it makes sense to do a dedication 
of a 1 foot vehicular non-access easement along the alley for the property. He 
stated deleting Stipulation 4 made sense because there is driveway access to

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 3
 
Scottsdale Road and the road has been fully improved for years. He stated a 
dedicated public transit stop creates a problem because no one is sure exactly 
where it should go and who manages it.  
 
He stated the rationale from the Public Transit Department used for dedicating a 
public transit stop was because the existing one north of Sweetwater Avenue is 
public improvements to Scottsdale Road occurred. He stated Stipulation 7 needs 
modification because the building on Lot 5 is close to 15 feet in height when the 
stipulated maximum heigh is 14 feet. 
 
He requested to modify Stipulation 8 to accommodate the alleyway along Lot 5. 
Regarding Stipulation 10, Mr. Richert asked why the approvements stipulated 
were not completed when the improvements along Scottsdale Road were made. 
He stated there are no sidewalks in the immediate area and most people utilize 
automobiles instead of the transit systems. He argues the Transit Department 
should be the one to build the transit pad because it is a city-wide desire to have 
the improvements. He argued Stipulation 11 should be deleted because no one 
will be digging in the area. He stated Stipulation 12 reflects the final action of the 
PHO request by granting a new date of approval and asked if Mr. Easton can 
recommend a 24-month approval time frame because it will allow the other 
property owners to comply with the stipulations.  
 
He recommended Stipulation 13 be deleted because the stipulation recognizes 
that all the properties are individual and have different wall heights. He argued 
that the office space use is low impact and building the 8-foot wall in 5 different 
segments does not make any sense. 
 
He stated the 24-month time extension would give the property owners time to 
comply with the stipulations. He stated the 10-foot landscape setback cannot be 
done on Lot 5 because it was approved during the time of permitting and 
rezoning, but he does not want the same to happen to Lots 1 through 4 as it will 
not provide adequate landscape buffering for the neighbors. He stated the 
business owners are still utilizing the trash cans in the alleys for their trash. He 
reiterated keeping the landscape setback is important to keep the developers 
from building more on the properties and bringing in more employees. He stated 
the 8-foot wall is important for safety measures.  
 
He stated they intend on complying with the landscape setback for Lot 5 and do 
not intend to change it for the remaining lots. He stated previous projects have 
been over-stipulated to provide public improvements in the public right-of-way 
when the city can only require one lane along Scottsdale Road. He stated the 
owners of Lots 4 and 5 are willing to use trash cans on their properties instead of 
the alley. He stated the employees and customers of the businesses are to use 
Scottsdale Road as their access point, not the alleyways.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 4
 
Michael Howell, nearby neighbor, asked if there is some rationale for the 
agreement for the 8-foot wall. He stated he lives behind Lot 5 and there are 
mature trees along the southernmost portion of the lot. He stated he was told by 
the City that that area would not be relinquished because it is a drainage area 
and the individuals who own the property are responsible for it. He stated he has 
not been able to fill in his drainage area but the property behind him has and he 
wants to ensure he will not be held responsible for it. 
 
Mr. Richert stated people wanted the wall for noise prevention and view 
protection. He stated the intention of the wall was to separate the activity on the 
five lots and there would be no access to the lots once the properties were 
converted to offices. He stated Mr. Easton can probably add a stipulation 
requiring the R-O properties to have their own trash receptacles instead of 
utilizing the trash cans in the alley. He asked Mr. Easton if he can add language 
regarding the floodplain issue Mr. Howell mentioned. 
 
Kelly Howell, nearby neighbor, stated the fence goes past the wash area. She 
stated the property owners are good at dumping their trash, however 
landscapers for Lot 5 have dumped bulk trash in the alley. She stated that 
blocking off alley access from Scottsdale Road would prevent traffic along the 
neighboring properties. 
 
Mr. Easton asked Mr. Richert to clarify what the parameters of the request were. 
He asked if this request was only for Lots 4 and 5. 
 
Mr. Richert stated it was only for Lots 4 and 5. 
 
Mr. Easton clarified that he will only talk about Lots 4 and 5 and a separate PHO 
request would need to be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3 if the property owners 
were interested in going through the same process. He stated this is the first time 
the details of the proposal have been presented since the narrative did not 
explain it thoroughly. He stated that the letter from Mr. Stephenson does address 
the building on Lot 5 and indicates there cannot be any buildings within 111 feet 
from the alleyway, however the building permit for the garage has already been 
approved. He reiterated the letter said the garage was permitted for residential 
use and the client may not use the building for a residential-office use unless a 
Planning Hearing Officer modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general 
conformance to a site plan is approved. He stated they did not comply and asked 
Mr. Richert when the use of the property was converted from residential to office. 
 
Mr. Richert stated he was not aware at the time and the property owner was 
planning on building the garage as a residential building and that is how it was 
permitted. He stated since this is an R-O property, it may not meet the building 
code for commercial use. He stated if the property owner wanted to use the 
garage as an R-O use, she would need to go through the PHO process again to

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 5
 
get the allowance and submit plans that shows the building complies as 
commercial use. 
 
Mr. Easton stated that he needs more information and is taking the case under 
advisement. 
 
FINDINGS: 
 
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the 
site plan is recommended to be approved with a modification.  This 
modification is to provide more standardized general conformance 
stipulation language and combine both lots into one general conformance 
Stipulation. 
   
The original rezoning case (Z-37-07-2) stipulated general conformance to 
the site plan date stamped February 9, 2009 with specific regard to the 
existing building footprints, maintenance of the existing west property line 
walls and the addition of enclosed/covered trash containers.  
 
Lot 5 received approval for a detached garage in the rear yard prior to the 
City Council approval of the original rezoning case.  The intent of the 
garage, as explained in a letter written by prior Principal Planner/Planning 
Hearing Officer Alan Stephenson on February 5, 2010, was for the client 
to continue utilization of the property as a single-family residence with a 
detached garage for their personal use. The letter from Mr. Stephenson 
also noted that the current owner of Lot 5 may not utilize the detached 
garage for a Residential Office (R-O) use unless a PHO modification of 
Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan is approved.  
The applicant did not complete this step as directed and has been using 
the site for R-O uses for several years and is now asking for the 
necessary modification. 
 
2) The request to delete Stipulation 4 regarding cross access and parking 
agreements is recommended to be approved.  In the original rezoning 
case, it was envisioned that Lots 3 and 4 would develop concurrently as a 
combined phase and with a shared parking design.   This did not come to 
pass and Lots 3 and 4 were converted to office uses separately.   Lot 3 is 
also not a party to this case.   The two property owners are not working 
together on a shared design.   Further, this recommendation is consistent 
with the recommendation for modification in Stipulation 1 in which Lot 4 is 
depicted as a standalone site.    This recommendation will allow Lot 4 to 
move forward with its proposed site plan and not be dependent on 
redevelopment of Lot 3.  
 
3) The request to delete Stipulation 5 regarding Scottsdale Road 
improvements is recommended to be denied.  The existing southbound

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 6
 
bus stop north of Sweetwater Avenue is not in compliance with City of 
Phoenix standards for bus stop placement and spacing. Bus stops are to 
be located on the far side of intersections and spaced approximately 1,320 
feet (1/4 mile) from one another. The existing bus stop at the intersection 
of Scottsdale Rd & Dreyfus Ave is too close to the stop to the north and 
too far from the stop to the south. 
 
4) The request to modify Stipulation 7 regarding building height is 
recommended to be approved with a modification. References to the 
maximum number of building stories are recommended to be removed as 
building height is the appropriate standard to control building massing and 
impact. There is no proposal to modify the maximum building height of Lot 
4 and the existing stipulated height of 13 feet is recommended to be 
retained. The detached garage in the rear portion of Lot 5 is setback at a 
minimum of 18 feet from the centerline of the alley and one extra foot of 
building height beyond the original stipulated 14-foot maximum height will 
not negatively impact surrounding properties. The modified stipulation is 
also more restrictive than the maximum 30 feet in height otherwise 
permitted by the R-O zoning.  
 
5) The request to modify Stipulation 8 regarding minimum rear setbacks is 
recommended to be approved with a modification.  The modification is to 
remove reference to Lot 5 entirely.  The original stipulation (i.e., 111-foot 
setback) was based on the existing setback of the original primary home 
at the time of the rezoning action.  However, during processing of the 
rezoning case, there was also a garage constructed at a minimum setback 
of 10-feet from the rear property line (18 feet to the centerline of the alley).  
For further context regarding this garage, please see Finding 1 regarding 
Stipulation 1.  The R-O zoning district requires a minimum 25-foot setback 
measured to the centerline of the alley. The existing garage would not 
meet this condition.  However, as it was legally permitted and constructed 
per residential standards, it would be allowed to remain.  However, if this 
garage is expanded or redeveloped in the future, a variance would be 
required.  Therefore, it is sensible to remove the reference to Lot 5 entirely 
as the existing conditions do not meet the requirement and a public 
hearing would be required for any future expansion. 
 
6) The request to delete Stipulation 10 regarding street improvements is 
recommended to be denied.  The City of Scottsdale holds authority over 
the west side of Scottsdale Road, extending solely to the back of the curb. 
Given that sidewalks are constructed behind the curb within the 
jurisdiction of the City of Phoenix, the City of Scottsdale lacked the 
capacity to construct sidewalks within the City of Phoenix right-of-way 
during the improvement of Scottsdale Road.  Additionally, both Stipulation 
10 and the proposed additional stipulation (see Finding #10) by the Street 
Transportation Department align with the provisions outlined in Phoenix

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 7
 
City Code Section 31-91.a. This section of City Code necessitates 
enhancements to the right-of-way by the adjacent property owner before 
the issuance of building permits.  The section also ensures compliance 
with the standards designated for each right-of-way as depicted in the 
"Minimum Right-of-Way Standards Map . 
 
7) The request to delete Stipulation 11 regarding archaeological assessment 
is recommended to be denied.  This stipulation is standard language and 
will only be enforced during site plan review if new ground is being 
disturbed and therefore should be retained. 
 
8) The request to modify Stipulation 12 regarding a requirement to obtain 
final site plan approval is recommended to be approved with a 
modification.  The modification is to delete the stipulation in its entirety.  
G-5383 and subsequent development is subject to plan review and 
approval by existing policy. 
 
9) The request to delete Stipulation 13 regarding walls along the rear 
property line is recommended to be denied.  During processing of the 
original rezoning case, this stipulation was added during the City Council 
hearing in response to public comments in opposition. The intent of the 
stipulation was to mitigate the impacts of potential noise and activity on 
adjacent residential properties.  The concern remains.  Additionally, this 
stipulation is compatible with the current Ordinance requirement for 
provision of an 8-foot wall along common property lines between non-
residential property lines and residentially zoned properties.   Further, the 
remaining 3 lots in the original rezoning case area remain stipulated to this 
requirement.  The fact that the property owners did not immediately 
comply with this requirement upon approval of the original rezoning action 
does not mitigate the original and continued concern.  
 
10) The Street Transportation Department recommended addition of a new 
stipulation regarding provision of a detached sidewalk and landscape strip 
along the west side of Scottsdale Road.  This stipulation is recommended 
for inclusion as the new Stipulation 9.  In the event the property is 
redeveloped, this stipulation establishes the streetscape standard for 
inclusion of a sidewalk in this location.  This stipulation aligns with the 
provisions outlined in Phoenix City Code Section 31-91.a.  This section of 
City Code necessitates enhancements to the right-of-way by the adjacent 
property owner before the issuance of building permits.  The section also 
ensures compliance with the standards designated for each right-of-way 
as depicted in the "Minimum Right-of-Way Standards Map . Provision of 
detached sidewalks is a commonplace stipulated requirement and 
appropriate for this location in which no current pedestrian infrastructure 
exists.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 8
STIPULATIONS:
1.
LOTS 4 AND 5 That development shall be in general conformance to
the site plan date stamped FEBRUARY 23, 2024, February 9, 2009, with 
specific regard to the existing building footprints, maintenance of the 
existing west property line walls and the addition of enclosed/covered 
trash containers as approved AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING 
STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED by the PLANNING AND 
Development Services Department. 
2.
That A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape setback along the entire west 
property line of all lots shall be provided with the corresponding phase. 
Required landscape materials planted in this landscape buffer shall 
include a mix of minimum 2 and 3-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on 
center or equivalent groupings as approved by the PLANNING AND 
Development Services Department.
3.
That A minimum six-foot wide landscape setback shall be provided along 
the north property line of Lot 1. Required landscape materials shall include 
a mix of minimum 2 and 3-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center or 
equivalent groupings as approved by the PLANNING AND 
DEVLEOPMENT Development Services Department.
4.
That cross access and parking agreements for Lots 3 and 4 shall be 
created and recorded prior to preliminary site plan approval for the 
corresponding phase as approved by the Development Services 
Department.
4.
5.
That Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city along Scottsdale Road 
south of Sweetwater Avenue and a transit pad installed according to City
of Phoenix Detail P1261 as approved by the Public Transit Department.
5.
6.
That The property owner of Lot 5 shall file for and pursue abandonment of 
the alley, south of Lot 5 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 
for the residential office use on Lot 5. In the event the abandonment is not 
granted, a one foot (1') vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) shall be 
recorded along the southern property line of Lot 5 as approved by the 
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.
6.
7.
That building height shall be limited to one (1) story and 13 feet with the 
exception of Lot 5 to be limited to one (1) story and 14 feet.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF LOT 4 SHALL BE 13 FEET. THE 
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF LOT 5 SHALL BE 15 FEET.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 9
7.
8.
That The rear building setbacks (west side) shall be limited to the following 
existing setbacks: Lot 1 - 77 feet; Lot 2 - 78 feet; Lot 3 - 97 feet; Lot 4 -
103 feet, and Lot 5 - 111 feet as measured from the centerline of the 
existing 16-foot alley.
8.
9.
That A one foot (1') vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) along the 
entire west property line shall be recorded prior to preliminary site plan 
approval for the corresponding phase as approved by the PLANNING 
AND Development Services Department.
9.
A MINIMUM 6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK SEPARATED BY A 
MINIMUM 10-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE AREA SHALL BE 
CONSTRUCTED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SCOTTSDALE ROAD, 
ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
10.
That The developer shall construct sidewalk, curb ramps, and other 
incidentals as per plans approved by the PLANNING AND Development 
Services Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA 
accessibility standards.
11.
That 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.
12.
That each individual property owner shall obtain final site plan approval 
within 24 months of council action.
12.
13.
That An eight-foot wall shall be constructed along the rear property line 
with the corresponding phase as approved by the PLANNING AND 
Development Services Department.
13.
14.
That The Street Transportation Department shall study cut-through traffic 
before and after all five businesses have been established to determine if 
traffic mitigation is warranted. If warranted, the applicant shall pay their 
rough proportionality of the costs of mitigation, not to exceed 12 percent.
14.
15.
That Notice shall be provided to all property owners within the 85254-zip
code who submitted speaker cards at the City Council hearing of changes 
to the site plan through either the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department site plan review process or the Planning Hearing Officer 
hearing process.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 17, 2024 
Application PHO-1-24
Z-37-07-2
Page 10
 
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length 
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an 
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the 
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer 
diskette. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Teleia Galaviz 
at teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov or (602) 291-2559 or TTY: 7-1-1.

PHO-1-24--Z-37-07-2
Proposed Conceptual Site Plan-Lot 5
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024