Attachment D - PHO Application - PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7.pdf

PLEASE RESPOND ELECTRONICALLY TO TERESA GARCIA 2ND FLOOR, 602-262-7399
To: 
Date: March 19, 2024
From: 
Departments Concerned 
Joshua Bednarek
Planning & Development Department Director 
Subject: P.H.O. APPLICATION NO. PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7 – Notice of Pending
Actions  by the Planning Hearing Officer 
1.
Your attention is called to the fact that the Planning Hearing Officer will
consider the following case at a public hearing on April 17, 2024.
2.
Information about this case is available for review at the Zoning Counter in
the Planning and Development Department on the 2nd Floor of Phoenix City
Hall, telephone 602-262-7131, Option 6.
3.
Staff, please indicate your comments and respond electronically to
pdd.pho@phoenix.gov or you may provide hard copies at the Zoning Counter
in the Planning and Development Department on the second floor of Phoenix
City Hall by March 26, 2024.
DISTRIBUTION
Mayor’s Office (Tony Montola), 11th Floor
City Council (Stephanie Bracken), 11th Floor
Aviation (Jordan D. Feld )
CED (Michelle Pierson), 20th Floor
Fire Prevention (Joel Asirsan), 2nd Floor
Neighborhood Services (Gregory Gonzales, Lisa Huggins), 4th Floor
Parks & Recreation (Todd Shackelford), 16th Floor
Public Transit (Michael Pierce)
Street Transportation Department (Maja Brkovic, Josh Rogers, Alan Hilty, Chris Kowalsky), 
5th Floor 
Street Transportation - Ped. Safety Coordinator (Kurt Miyamoto), 5th Floor
Street Transportation - Floodplain Management (Tina Jensen, Priscilla Motola, Rudy Rangel), 
5th Floor
Water Services (Don Reynolds, Victor Romo), 8th Floor
Planning and Development (Joshua Bednarek, Tricia Gomes), 3rd Floor
Planning and Development/Information Services (Ben Ernyei, Andrew Wickhorst), 4th Floor
Planning and Development/Historic Preservation Office (Kevin Weight), 3rd Floor
Planning Hearing Officer (Byron Easton, Teresa Garcia), 2nd Floor
Village Planner (Nayeli Sanchez Luna, Estrella Village) 
Village Planning Committee Chair (Lisa Perez, Estrella Village) 
Attachment D

200 W. Washington St., 2nd Floor, Phoenix, AZ  85003 ● 602-626-7131 
 
 
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION 
APPLICATION NO: PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7 
Council District: 7 
 
Request For: Stipulation Modification 
Reason for Request: 1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan and landscape plans 
date stamped September 20, 2017.;2. Request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding Commerce Park/General Commerce Park 
Development Standards along the east property line.;3. Technical Correction to Stipulation 8. 
 
Contact Information 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 
Relationship  
Type 
Address 
Phone 
Fax 
Email 
Michael S 
Buschbacher, II 
AICP 
Applicant 
3101 North Central 
Avenue, Suite 1000, 
Phoenix AZ. 85012 
  
  
mbuschbacher@earlcurley.com 
Phoenix Jones 
Partners, LLC. 
Owner 
5112 North 40th 
Street, Suite 105, 
Phoenix, AZ 85018 
  
  
  
Earl & Curley 
P.C. - Taylor Earl 
Applicant 
3101 North Central 
Avenue, Suite 1000, 
Phoenix AZ. 85012 
  
  
  
Michael 
Buschbacher, 
Representative 
3101 N Central 
Avenue, Suite 1000, 
Phoenix AZ 85012 
United States 
  
  
mbuschbacher@earlcurley.com 
 
Property Location: Approximately 1320 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road. 
Acreage: 9.77 
 
Geographic Information 
 
 
Zoning Map 
APN 
Quarter Section 
E5 
104-47-003U 
Q5-14 
 
Village: 
Estrella 
 
An applicant may receive a clarification from the city of its interpretation or application of a statute, ordinance, code or authorized 
substantive policy statement. To request clarification or to obtain further information on the application process and applicable 
review time frames, please call 602-262-7131 (option 6), email zoning@phoenix.gov or visit our website at 
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/licensing-time-frames 
 
A Filing Fee had been paid to the City Treasurer to cover the cost of processing this application. The fee will be retained to cover 
the cost whether or not the request is granted 
 
 
I declare that all information submitted is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I acknowledge that any error in 
my application may be cause for changing its normal scheduling. 
 
 
 
Signature: ____________________________________________________     DATE: ___________________ 
 
Fee Information 
 
 
 
Fee 
Fee Waived 
Fee Date 
Purpose

City of Phoenix 
Planning & Development Department 
 
 
 
 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
 
$1,725.00 
$0.00 
02/23/24 
PHO (3+ stipulations)

Project Narrative  
59th Avenue Industrial Site 
(PHO-2-24—Z-62-13-7)  
 
 
 
¼ mile South of the SWC of S. 59th Avenue & W. Lower Buckeye Road  
Phoenix, Arizona 
 
PREPARED BY 
 
 
For  
Harrison Properties 
 
 
Submitted: February 23, 2023

2 | P a g e 
 
 
 
Introduction 
 
This project consists of a challenging 
remnant piece of industrial property. In the 
parcel’s original rezoning case, there were 
128 acres of land. Since that time, the 
original area of land was divided up and 
developed. Only a few parcels remain 
from the original zoning case, including the 
8.9-acre subject site.  
 
The subject site is relatively 
narrow in width for an 
industrial site, which makes 
development 
more 
challenging. The site is also 
now positioned between 
A-1 industrial development 
on the west and east and 
an 
electrical 
power 
substation to the north.  
 
The 
minor 
stipulation 
modifications requested in 
this PHO account for the 
site’s 
change 
in 
circumstances and to allow 
a 
modest 
industrial 
development.  
 
Project Scope 
 
The proposed project will consist of developing the site with two warehouse 
buildings that would combine for a total size of approximately 152,220 square 
feet. Because of how narrow the site is, breaking the site up into two smaller 
buildings is the only way a site plan could work here. The buildings would be 
planned for Light Industrial uses, per the site’s existing A-1 zoning.

3 | P a g e 
 
 
Building A is proposed to be developed as a 53,235 sq. ft. industrial building with 
a north/south orientation.  Building B is proposed to be developed as a 98,985 sq. 
ft. industrial building with an east/west orientation.  The proposed building heights 
are planned at 36’ and 36’-10” ft respectively.  The buildings will be tilt-up 
concrete construction with textured paint in neutral earth tone colors and 
architectural accents of form liner and glazing.  
 
Parking areas are proposed on the outside perimeters of the buildings that meet 
the City’s required 1/1000 sq. ft. and 1/2500 sq. ft. parking ratios. Landscape 
medians and end caps are proposed in the parking lot to break up the rows of 
parking.   
 
Access to the parcel is proposed to be provided from 59th Avenue at the north 
and south end of the site along with an entry mid-block. These access drives will 
allow trucks and passenger vehicles to be partially separated and circulate 
through the site safely. 
 
Development Standards 
 
Development standards are proposed along the street frontage on 59th Avenue, 
consistent with the CP/GCP development standards, as per stipulation 3 from 
PHO-1-17—Z-62-13, but without the building stepback requirement.  
 
Landscape streetscape improvements are proposed along the street frontage on 
59th Avenue per the CP/GCP standards in the zoning ordinance, section 
626.H.2.a.  The landscape planting pallet will incorporate the use of flowering 
desert shrubs, drought tolerant trees, and groundcovers that will provide a sense 
of identity and be compatible with the neighborhood and environmental

4 | P a g e 
 
 
conditions of the region. The frontage landscape will be designed to blend with 
and complement the existing landscape edge treatment on the east side of 59th 
Avenue for the Amazon warehouse. The application of these development 
standards will complete the streetscape on 59th Avenue in a way that is 
compatible with existing development and provides an aesthetically pleasing 
corridor for this small remaining section of 59th Avenue. 
 
The subject site is challenging because of several conditions noted above. Our 
team has developed a design that fits in with the surroundings, provides 
appropriate building setbacks and landscaping along 59th Avenue, and yet can 
only remain viable without the application of the stepback provision for building 
heights in CP/GCP development standards. 
 
Solutions proposed in the narrative below will show how our proposal remains 
consistent with the primary intent of the previous PHO and rezoning case, while 
providing solutions to carefully modify development standards with a limited 
approach that takes into account the current context of the area.  
 
Summary of Stipulation Modification Requests 
 
Our first request is to modify stipulation 1 to simply substitute in a new site plan and 
landscape plan. The existing stipulation refers to a site plan and landscape plan 
that showed the subject site as a future phase. We are actually in conformance 
with these plans and do not need to request a modification. However, to provide 
the City with certainty of our development, we are willing to modify stipulation 1 
to stipulate to our proposed site plan and landscape plan. We are doing this as 
an accommodation to the City.   
 
Our second request is to modify stipulation 3 to clarify that the eastern lot line will 
be treated as an internal lot line under Commerce Park standards, thereby not 
requiring an aggressive stepback of 3’ of additional setback for every 1’ of 
additional height (starting at 18’ of height at a 30’ setback). All other standards 
of the Commerce Park/General Commerce Park, including the landscaping 
requirements, will be retained for that east lot line.  We believe this is how the 
stipulation should already be interpreted. But this modification will clarify the 
matter.  
 
Moreover, with a site this narrow, the aggressive stepback regime of Commerce 
Park is unfairly burdensome. The heights of the proposed buildings are modest for

5 | P a g e 
 
 
an industrial project, at only 36’ and 36’-10” ft respectively. Even still, the stepback 
requirement would force us to push the buildings back to such an extent that it 
would eliminate almost 25% from the two proposed buildings.  The buildings are 
already so low that losing height is not a viable solution for the problem. Keeping 
industrial buildings under 37’ is already a feat. Forcing the buildings any shorter 
becomes a hardship when trying to find users in a very competitive environment. 
 
The third request is more of a technical modification to stipulation 8, which is a 
boilerplate stipulation requiring 55’ of right of way. Due to conflicts with power 
lines, Mr. Al Zubi of the City’s Street Transportation Department modified the City’s 
right of way request from 55’ to 45’ (see attached email from Mr. Zubi). Although 
he did not suggest a stipulation modification be pursued, we think it would be 
best to clean up the zoning in that regard.  
 
Discussion 
 
 
Stipulation 1 – New Site Plan and Landscape Plan  
 
Below is our proposed amendment:  
 
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and 
landscape plans date stamped September 20, 2017 February 23, 2024, as 
approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
The existing stipulation refers back to plans from September 20, 2017, which show 
the subject parcel as a future phase in both the site plan and the landscape 
plan. Thus, they are void of any detail.

6 | P a g e 
 
 
Because of this lack of detail, we are actually in general conformance with both. 
An excerpt of the site plan is pasted below (which shows about half our site) and 
the full set is attached to this filing.  
 
 
 
However, to provide reassurance to the City that what it sees in this PHO is what 
it will get, we are offering to update this stipulation to require general 
conformance to the current site plan and landscape plan.  
 
 
Stipulation 3 – Elimination of Stepback Regime 
 
 
 
Revision Language 
 
Below is our proposed revision to Stipulation 3:  
 
3. Commerce Park/General Commerce Park Development Standards shall 
be provided along the east property line, with the east property line being

7 | P a g e 
 
 
deemed an “interior lot line on a street,” as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department. 
 
Below we will explain why we have phrased the revision as suggested above.  
 
 
 
Internal vs Perimeter Lot Line 
 
Under Commerce Park/General Commerce Park, there are two different sets of 
standards for lot lines on a street:  
 Interior lot line on a street 
 Perimeter lot line on a street  
 
An interior lot line on a street exists when there is Commerce Park zoning on both 
sides of the street. A perimeter lot line on a street exists when the subject site is 
zoned Commerce Park but some other zoning exists across the street. For 
illustrative purposes, consider the map below. On the left side of the map, there 
exists Commerce Park zoning on both sides of the street. Therefore, those lot lines 
are “interior lot lines on a street.” But on the right side of the map, there is 
Commerce Park zoning on the west side of the street and C-1 zoning on the east 
side, which makes that a “perimeter lot line on a street.”  
 
 
 
In short, when the zoning on both sides of the street matches, it’s “Interior” 
because it is not the edge of the zoning district. When the zoning doesn’t match 
on both sides, it’s “perimeter” because it’s the edge of the zoning district.   
 
When a perimeter lot line exists, Commerce Park requires any buildings next to 
that lot line to incorporate an aggressive “stepback” regime—which requires 
the building height to be limited to 18’ at a 30’ setback and then for an 
additional 3’ of setback to be added for each additional 1’ of height.  This is

8 | P a g e 
 
 
appropriate when Commerce Park is up against less intense zoning districts 
because it helps ease the transition.  
 
Here, the stipulation requires the subject site (zoned A-1) to apply Commerce 
Park standards to the eastern lot line. But the question is which set of standards 
should apply to that lot line? Is the eastern lot line to be treated as an interior lot 
line or a perimeter lot line? If we are truly to follow Commerce Park standards, 
there must be some situations that would trigger internal lot line standards and 
other situations that would trigger perimeter lot line standards. Which situation 
do we have in our case?  
 
Below is the current zoning map of the subject site. Our site is zoned A-1 and the 
site to the east is zoned A-1. In other words, the zoning on both sides matches. It 
is not the edge of the zoning district.   
 
 
 
Since this stipulation applies to an A-1 site, by definition we will never have a 
situation of having Commerce Park on both sides of the street. So, we aren’t 
looking for that condition to exist. But what we do have is matching zoning on 
both sides of the street, which is when an “interior lot line” condition exists. Thus, 
we believe the fairest interpretation of this stipulation to our situation is that we 
are already permitted to apply standards for an interior lot line on a street.  
 
Accordingly, this PHO can be understood as a clarification of the stipulation, 
rather than a deviation. We are merely making clear something that is unclear—
that the eastern lot line should be treated as an interior lot line.

9 | P a g e 
 
 
But even if someone were to reach a different conclusion about how the 
stipulation should be interpreted today, we believe that the modification we are 
requesting is a fair and sensible solution. Thus, one could view our request as 
either clarifying how the stipulation should be interpreted or as a sensible 
modification to an existing stipulation.  
 
It is key to note that as an internal lot line, we would still have to meet Commerce 
Park’s setback and landscape standards. Our request would simply mean the 
site would not be required to apply an aggressive stepback regime on an A-1 
site that has A-1 across the street. As for setback, it is true that internal lot lines on 
a street only require a 20’ setback. But our change to stipulation 1 would require 
general conformance to our current site plan, which shows a 32’ and a 38’ 
setback. So, the City is covered in that regard. . 
 
The whole reason for increased setbacks when adjacent to different zoning is to 
provide an accommodation to that different zoning and to act as a transition 
between a less intense district (like C-1) to a more intense district. Here, where 
we have A-1 on both sides of the street, it makes more sense to consider this an 
interior condition anyway. Thus, even if the current stipulation must be read to 
impose the stepback, our PHO request is appropriate because this context isn’t 
where this type of stepback is needed.    
 
Moreover, this site is so narrow that an aggressive stepback regime would make 
development very difficult. Even with our proposed buildings that are only 
36’-37’ tall (which is mild for industrial development), abiding by the aggressive 
stepback would still require us to lose +/- 25% of our buildings. This is unfairly 
burdensome.  This PHO request is a fair and sensible modification to allow 
reasonable industrial development to occur on a property that couldn’t 
realistically be developed for anything else given its location.   
 
When this stipulation was created in 2017, we suspect the hearing officer did not 
intentionally mean to impose this type of stepback regime. At the time, the 
existing stipulation required a 75’ setback. At the PHO hearing, the applicant 
asked the hearing officer if she would reconsider requiring 75’ because it would 
make the remaining parcel (i.e. the subject parcel of the current PHO) difficult 
to develop. Ms. Gomes was willing to take that particular matter under 
advisement. When she issued her ruling, she did modify the standard and only 
required Commerce Park standards to be applied rather than a hard 75’ 
setback requirement.

10 | P a g e 
 
 
 
But consider what happens when we apply the stepback regime. If we are 
required to incorporate the Commerce Park stepback, our 36’ 10” building 
(rounding to 37’) would be required to be setback 87’. The math is as follows:  
 
The stepback requires a max height of 18’ within a 30’ setback. Each 
additional 1’ of height requires an additional 3’ of setback. Therefore, to 
add 19’ of height to get to 37’ total, we would be required to add 57’ of 
setback to the starting 30’, for a total of 87’.  
 
The hearing officer was trying to lessen the burden of a 75’ setback, not increase 
it. Thus, we believe the hearing officer either did not intend the stepback regime 
of Commerce Park to apply here or, even if she did, she did not fully 
contemplate the negative impact it would have on normal industrial buildings. 
If we felt like a 37’-tall industrial building was excessive, we might feel differently. 
But in today’s market, a 37’-tall industrial building is very mild. The average height 
of buildings in the area ranges from approximately 42’ to 56’.  
 
It is possible the hearing officer was thinking about the possibility of a retail 
building, as that possibility was discussed in the record. But retail would fail 
miserably at this location. Given the circulation patterns created by Loop 202, 
the passerby traffic to the site would never support retail. Anybody traveling 
north/south for any distance is going to use the freeway, not 59th Avenue. Until 
the freeway opened in December 2019, well after the stipulation was added, 
this pattern may have been hard to see, even for the property owner. But now 
that it is here, there is zero viability of retail here. This too is a changed 
circumstance for this site that justifies the PHO request.  
 
If this site was actually zoned Commerce Park, we would pursue a variance for 
setback relief. We would point to the narrow shape of the lot and how it unfairly 
burdens development to step the building back so much. We would point to the 
A-1 condition on the east side of the street and note how allowing us to not 
incorporate a stepback regime would not have any negative impact on that 
property to the east. And we would point to the change in circumstances 
caused by the freeway. We believe that type of variance would be granted. 
Indeed, our firm processed a similar variance recently, and it was approved. But 
because the standard comes from a stipulation, variance relief is not possible. 
The only solution is PHO relief. Thus, we implore the City to grant this reasonable 
PHO.

11 | P a g e 
 
 
 
In the end, we believe the requested modification/clarification is minor. 
Whereas 59th Avenue once served as the north/south corridor for this area, that 
is no longer the case. The freeway serves that purpose. The east/west arterials 
still serve that function, but this parcel doesn’t abut Lower Buckeye Rd. or 
Broadway Rd. It only abuts 59th Avenue. 59th Avenue is now positioned more as 
an internal roadway to an industrial park than it is a regional arterial.  
 
To be clear, we will still be meeting the rest of the Commerce Park standards, 
and so the streetscape will be appropriate for this area. But imposing an 
aggressive stepback regime is overly burdensome for this narrow parcel and 
doesn’t serve a compelling public interest.  
 
Stipulation 8 – Reduction of ROW  
 
Our requested modification to Stipulation 8 is shown below: 
 
8.   Right-of-way totaling 55 45 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 
59th Avenue. Provide curb, gutter, paving, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, 
landscaping and incidentals for the length of the project. 
 
Due to a conflict with large power poles on 59th Avenue, the Street Transportation 
Department has modified its right-of-way request from 55’ to 45’. See the email 
from Al Zubi that is attached to this application.  
 
The proposed modification of Stipulation 8 simply brings the zoning in line with that 
modification.  
 
Conclusion  
 
The modifications requested in this PHO are reasonable. The requested 
modification to Stipulation 1 is being given as an accommodation to the City. 
And the requested modification to Stipulation 8 is more technical in nature. 
 
The core of our request is the modification to Stipulation 3. We believe a fair 
interpretation of that stipulation would allow for the relief being sought. 
However, even if the stipulation must be read as requiring the stepback, the 
change we are requesting is reasonable under the circumstances. With a site 
this narrow, that type of aggressive stepback unfairly burdens the site. And with 
A-1 development to the east and with 59th Avenue now being positioned more

12 | P a g e 
 
 
like an internal industrial roadway than a regional arterial, the modification we 
are asking for is fair and reasonable. We do not see a compelling reason to 
require this site to impose such a difficult stepback.  
 
We urge the City to grant the requested relief.

Zoning Division • 200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 602-262-7131, Option #6 
March 9, 2018 
 
 
 
Teresa Harvey 
190 Laguna Drive East 
Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340 
 
Dear Applicant: 
 
RE:  PHO-1-17--Z-62-13-7 – Approximately 1320 feet south of the southwest corner of 
59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road 
 
Please be advised that the Phoenix City Council, in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 601 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, has on February 21, 2018, 
approved Zoning Ordinance # G-6419. 
 
Development and use of the site is subject to compliance with all applicable codes and 
ordinances. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Teresa Hillner 
Planner III 
 
Attachment: Signed Ordinance 
 
c: Newport Groups 22 ,LLC, 3710 Buckeye Street, #100, Palm Beach Garden, FL 
33410 
 
Red River 647 Holdings, LLC dba 59LBR, PO Box 1397, Tolleson, AZ 85353 
 
Jazmine Braswell, PDD–Planning (Electronically)  
 
Joshua Bednarek, PDD–Development (Electronically)  
 
Greg Gonzales, NSD (Electronically)  
 
Penny Parrella, City Council (Electronically) 
 
Book 
 
Case File

follows: 
ORDINANCE G-6419 
Official Records of Maricopa County Recorder 
ADRIAN FONTES 
20180167818 03/06/201810:08 
ELECTRONIC RECORDING 
6419G..S-1-1-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE 
TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-62-13-7 PREVIOUSLY 
APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-5930. 
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as 
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately 1320 
feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road in a portion 
of Section 19, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in 
Attachment "A," are hereby modified to read as set forth below. 
STIPULATIONS: 
1. 
The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and 
landscape plans date stamped February 27, 2014, SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 as 
approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
2. 
A minimum 75-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the west and 
south property lines and shall utilize the Commerce Park/General Commerce 
Park landscape standards for plant types, quantity and spacing, as approved by 
the Planning and Development Department. 
3. 
COMMERCE PARK/GENERAL COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT 
STANDARDS A minimum 75 foot building setback shall be provided along the 
west and east property lines, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department. 
Mod
Mod

4. 
A minimum 125-foot building setback shall be provided along the south property 
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
~ 
An eight foot high deoorative 'Nail shall be oonstruoted and set baok a minimum 
of 76 feet from the •Nest property line, as appro•Jed by the Planning and 
De)Jelopment Department. 
4.-
The perimeter ·.•tails acijaoent to Lower Buokeye Road and 63rd A¥enue shall 
inolude material and textural differenoes, suoh as stuooo and,tor split faoe blook 
with a deoorati".'-8 element, suoh as tile, glass insets, or stamped designs, as 
appro¥ed by the Planning and De¥elopment Department. 
57. 
Building height shall be limited to a maximum of 48 feet within 150 feet of the 
south property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
63. 
Outdoor storage shall not be permitted within 250 feet of the north, south and 
west property lines, EXCEPT FOR THE TRAILER STORAGE SHALL NOT BE 
LOCATED CLOSER THAN 200 FEET, as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department. 
~ 
A one foot non vehioular aooess easement shall be pro"lided along the west 
property line, as appro¥ed by the Planning and De•.f81opment Department. 
4Q.;. 
Right of way totaling 66 feet shall be dedioated for the south half of Lower 
Buokeye Road. Provide full improvements oonsisting of ourb, gutter, sidewalk, 
curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and inoidentals for the length of the 
projeot. 
744. 
Submit amended Traffic Impact Study Analysis updated to proposed 
development use. Additional improvements may be stipulated based upon study 
findings. 
842. 
Right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 59th Avenue. 
Provide curb, gutter, paving, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and 
incidentals for the length of the project. 
~ 
Right of way totaling 60 feet shall be dedioated for the existing 63rd Avenue 
Alignment v.~ith a minimum 26 foot pavement seotion to servioe VVilliams Street. 
Provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and incidentals for the length of the 
projeot. 
44:-
Right of way totaling 60 feet shall be dedicated for the proposed 63rd Avenue 
from Florenoe A¥enue to Ley .... •er Buokeye Road. Provide curb, gutter, paving, 
side·Nalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and incidentals for the length of 
the projeot. 
2 
Ordinance G-6419 
Mod

-1-e-:-
Right of 'Nay 30 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of 63rd ,AJlenue. Pro•1ide 
curb, gutter, paving, sidetNalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and 
incidentals for the length of the project . 
.:t.e.:. 
Contact Bruse Littleton (602 262 4690) for potential conduit and junction bo>Ees 
at Lower Buckeye Road and 63rd Avenue for future signal equipment for the 
intersection. Submittal will be made as a separate document that shO'NS the 
entire intersections with e>Eisting conduit runs and junction bo>Ees. The 
De\(eloper ·.-..ill submit the appFO\(ed plan to the Civil Plans Coordinator as part of 
the oi\'il engineering plan set. All v.~rk related to the construction or 
reconstruction of the signal, conduit runs and junction bo>E installation is the 
responsibility of the De\~loper. 
947. 
The developer shall update all existing off-site street improvements (sidewalks, 
curb ramps and driveways) to current ADA guidelines. 
10-1-8. 
Complete a Red Border Letter to notify ADOT of development adjacent to its 
freeway corridor and submit it to Alan Hilty in the Street Transportation 
Department 602 262 6193, with a copy to the Traffic Engineer and Civil Plans 
Reviewer. 
1149. 
Provide underground street light circuits, poles and fixtures on all public streets 
in locations approved by the Street Transportation Department. Submit one 
copy of the approved site plan with three copies of the streetlight plans to the 
2nd floor of City Hall to be routed to Street Lighting Section reviewer, Diane 
Gomez 602 262 7223. 
1220. 
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development 
with paving, curb, gutter, setback sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscape 
and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and Development 
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards. 
13. 
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. 
SECTION 2. Due to the site's specific physical conditions and the use 
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5930, this portion of the rezoning is now 
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5930 and as modified in 
Section 1 of this ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of 
3 
Ordinance G-6419

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until 
all the stipulations have been met. 
SECTION 3. 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 21st day of February, 
2018. 
ATTEST: 
REVIEWED BY: 
Exhibits: 
A- Legal Description (2 Pages) 
B- Ordinance Location Map (1 Page) 
4 
Ordinance G-6419

EXHIBIT A 
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PH0-1-17-- Z-62-13-7 
A-1 Zoning 
A portion of the Northeast quarter of Section19, Township 1 North, Range 2 East of the 
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly 
described as follows: 
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section 19; 
Thence South 88 degrees 49 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 967.82 feet to the 
Point of Beginning; 
Thence continuing South 88 degrees 49 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 378.98 
feet to the Northeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of 
Section 19; 
Thence South 00 degrees 13 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 1319.20 feet to 
the Southeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 19; 
Thence South 88 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 337.98 feet; 
Thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 1319.49 feet to a 
point on the North line of said Northeast quarter of Section 19; 
· 
Thence along said North line, South 88 degrees 49 minutes 28 seconds East a distance 
of 336.70 feet; 
Thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 08 seconds West a distance of 1319.77 feet to a 
point on the South line of the Northeast quarter of said Northeast quarter of Section 19; 
Thence South 88 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 675.96 feet to the 
Southeast corner of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 19; 
Thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 1320.35 feet to 
the East quarter corner of said Section 19; 
Thence along the South line of said Northeast quarter of Section 19, North 88 degrees 
44 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 1736.03 feet; 
Thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 2637.82 feet to the 
Point of Beginning. 
5 
Ordinance G-6419

Note: The above described parcel contains 3,232,013 square feet or 74.1968 acres, 
more or less. 
GCP Zoning 
Thence North 40 degrees 35 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 154.76 feet to the 
beginning of a tangent curve whose center bears North 49 degrees 24 minutes 55 
seconds West a distance of 500.00 feet; A portion of the Northeast quarter of 
Section19, Township 1 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and 
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly described as follows: 
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section 19; 
Thence South 88 degrees 49 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 336.70 feet to the 
Point of Beginning; 
Thence continuing South 88 degrees 49 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 631.12 
feet; 
Thence South 00 degrees 13 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 2637.82 feet to a 
point on the South line of said Northeast quarter of Section 19; 
Thence along the South line of said Northeast quarter of Section 19, North 88 degrees 
44 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 793.89 feet to a point on the East line of that 
certain Quit Claim Deed as recorded in Document No. 2002-0425032, records of 
Maricopa County, said point also being a point on the arc of a non-tangent curve whose 
center bears North 88 degrees 44 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 362.66 feet; 
Thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 35 degrees 
40 minutes 01 seconds and an arc length of 225.76 feet; 
Thence North 34 degrees 24 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 114.21 feet to the 
beginning of a tangent curve whose center bears North 55 degrees 35 minutes 08 
seconds East a distance of 299.66 feet; 
Thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 34 degrees 
51 minutes 57 seconds and an arc length of 182.35 feet to a point on the West line of 
said Northeast quarter of Section 19; 
Thence along said West line, North 00 degrees 27 minutes 05 seconds East a distance 
of 1281.31 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve whose center bears South 89 
degrees 32 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet; 
Thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 40 degrees 
08 minutes 00 seconds and an arc length of 350.23 feet; 
6 
Ordinance G-6419

' . 
Thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 39 degrees 
24 minutes 33 seconds and an arc length of 343.91 feet; 
Thence North 01 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 119.24 feet to the 
Point of Beginning. 
Note: The above described parcel contains 2,353,191 square feet or 54.0218 acres, 
more or less. 
7 
Ordinance G-6419

ORDINA.NCiE LOCATION MAP 
EXHIBIT.B 
ZONING SUBJEC'l' TO STIPULATIONS: * 
SUBJECT AREA:- - • -
I 
0 
5,200 Feet 
8 
Zoning Case Num~r:PJt()-1-17--Z~2-l3 
Zoning Overlay: N/A 
Planning Vlllage: Estrella 
PHO-l-17--Z-62-13 
NOT 
SCALE 
Drawnl)ate: 1123/2018 
Ordinance G-6419

*   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
I-10
VAN BUREN ST
BUCKEYE RD
LOWER BUCKEYE RD
BROADWAY RD
SOUTHERN AVE
27TH AVE
35TH AVE
19TH AVE
43RD AVE
51ST AVE
59TH AVE
67TH AVE
75TH AVE
83RD AVE
91ST AVE
99TH AVE
107TH AVE
I-17
SR 202 (Proposed)
§¨
10¦
§¨
17¦
APPLICATION NO.
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Michael J. Curley
Z-62-13
128.22 Acres
1/27/14
QS 6-14
E-5
ESTRELLA VILLAGE
7
Z-62-13
64TH DR
64TH AV
63RD LN
WILLIAMS ST
62ND DR
FULTO
N ST
R
IVA RD
RAYMOND ST
WINSLOW AV
PRES
TO
N LN
63RD DR
FLORENCE AV
SUPERIOR AV
MIAMI ST
PIONEER ST
CORDES RD
E
L
W
OO
D ST
CROWN KING RD
63RD AV
LOWER BUCKEYE RD
59TH AV
R-2 *
Z-67-02
R-3 PCD *
Z-150-05
S-1 *
Z-107-06
CP/GCP *
Z-131-99
A-1 *
Z-131-99
RE-35 *
RE-35
R1-10 *
Z-129-98
R1-6 PRD *
Z-163-06
S-1
Z-166-02
A-1 *
Z-67-95
A-2 *
Z-9-08
C-2*
Z-85-08
R1-6 PRD *
Z-80-98
RE-35
R-2 PRD *
Z-80-98
6429
6426
6427
6425
6422
6423
6421
6419
6418
6417
6415
6414
6413
6411
6410
6409
6407
6406
6405
6403
6338
6337
5810
6322
2645
2642
2638
2645
2641
2641
2637
2637
2634
2633
2633
6305
6309
6313
6317
2629
6321
2625
2621
6304
6308
6325
6329
6333
6326
6330
6334
6327
6331
6335
6339
6403
2820
2816
2812
6434
6431
6430 6426
6427
6422
6423
6418
6419
6414
6415
6410
6411
6406
6407
6402
6403 6347 6343
6344
6339
6340
6335
2846
2842
2838
2834
2830
2826
2847
6431
6432
6427
6428
6423
6424
6419
6420
6446
2853 2849 2845 2841 2837 2833 2829
2825
2821
2817
2813
3035
6329
6333
6337
6341
6433
6437
6441
3024
3025
3020
3021
3019
6340
6328
6332
6336
6430
6434
6438
6442
2855
2854
2851
2850
6434
6443
6444
6445
6430
6429
6430
6439
6440
6426
6425
6426
6435
6436
6422
6421
6422
6431
6432
6418
6417
6418
6427
6413
6414
6414
3043
3039
6410
3219
6429
6434
6442
6429
6416 6412 6408 6404 6346 6342
6338
2835
6336
6331
6332
6327
6328
2830
6323
6324
6319
6320
6316
6415 6411 6407 6403 6345 6341
2847
2843
2839
6327
6323
2850
2846
2842
2838
2834
6319
6315
6311 6307
6310
6314
6318
6322
6326
6309
6313
6317
6321
6325
6308
6312
6316
6320
6324
6329
6333
6337
6341
6345
3042
3038
6330
6334
6338
6342
3034
6235
6305
6306
6305
6304
6303
2849
2845
2841
2837
2833
2829
2825
2821
2817
2813
6309
6314
6313
6317
6302
6306
6310
6314
6318
6309
6313
6317
6321
6325
3218
6318
6322
6326
6330
6321
6325
6329
6333
3206
3202
6338
6322
6326
6330
6334
6430
6425
6426
6421
6422
6417
6418
6413
6414
6409
6410
6406
6405
3222
6402
6401
6334
6333
6330
6329
6326
6325
6322
6321
6318
6317
6426
6430
6434
6438
6334
6330
6326
6413
6417
6421
6425
6337 6333 6329
6325
6309
6313
6317
6321
6306
6310
6314
6318
6301
6305
6309
6313
6302
6306
6301
6305
6309
6437 6433 6429
6425
6421
6417
6413
6409
6405
6401
6321
6314
6313
6325
6322
6317
6310
3375
6305
6301
6302
3321
3317
3313
3309
3305
3301
3213
3209
3205
3201
3603
3611
3610
3333
5757
3032
5757
6054
6057
6056
6050
6053
6052
6049
6046
6048
6045
6042
6044
6041
6038
6040
6037
6034
6036
6030
6033
6032
6026
6029
6028
6022
3450
6002
6006
6010
6018
6005
6013
6009
6021
6025
6004
6008
6012
6016
6020
6024
6210
6214
6218
6222
6226
6213
6217
6221
6225
6214
6238
6237
6241
6234
6233
6237
6233
6229
6258 6254 6250 6246 6242
6238
6234
6230
6226
6222
6218
6209
6210
6205
6206
6206
6201
6202
6202
6064
6059
6060
6144
6249
6253
6246
6242
6241
6245
6249
3618
3650
6441
600
0
600
300
Feet
C-2, RE-35, RE-35 (R-2)
1118, 11, 45 (408)
1342, 13, 54 (490)
A-1, CP/GCP
N/A, N/A
N/A, N/A
A-1, (74.52 a.c)
CP/GCP, (53.70 a.c)
RE-35, (10.23 a.c.)
S:\Department Share\IS Share\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2013\Z-62-13_Revised.mxd
C-2, (77.15 a.c.)
R1-8 PRD*
R1-8 PRD*
RE-35 (Approved R-2), (40.84 a.c.)
2/28/14

S 59TH AVE
S 60TH
AVE
S 62ND
AVE
W WARNER ST
W RAYMOND ST
S 61ST AVE
S 60TH DR
R1-6 PRD*
RE-35
R-2 PRD*
RE-35
RE-35
RE-35
CP/GCP*
A-1*
RE-35*
A-1*
CP/GCP*
A-1*
A-1*
mapservices@phoenix.gov
Planning & Development Department
PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Property Location: Approximately 1320 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue 
                                 and Lower Buckeye Road.
0
340
680
170
Feet ´

S 59TH AVE
W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
R1-6 PRD*
RE-35
R-2
PRD*
RE-35
RE-35
RE-35
CP/GCP*
A-1*
C-2 SP*
A-1*
CP/GCP*
A-2*
A-1*
A-1*
A-1*
A-1*
A-1*
Planning & Development Department
PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Property Location: Approximately 1320 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue
                                 and Lower Buckeye Road.
0
430
860
215
Feet ´

PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
PHO-1-17--Z-62-13-7 Exhibit Map
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

59th AVENUE
BUILDING 'A'
(53,235 S.F.)
BLDG. HGT. :  35'-1112" AT THE RIDGE
FIN. FLR. EL.: 1017.4'
R-35 ZONING
A-1 ZONING
150'-0" SETBACK
(MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
LIGHT FIXTURES = 15'-0")
EXISTING
60'-0"
UTILITY ESMT.
& ACCESS
T
SES
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
EX. SLIDING GATE
75'-0" MIN.
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK PER
ZONING STIPS
38'-0"
B.S.L.
45'-0"
R.O.W.
30'-0"
MUTE
10'-0"
TRAIL
36+00
37+00
38+00
39+00
40+00
41+00
N88°35'11"W  329.21'
FDC LOCATION
SCALE:
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1" = 30'-0"
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP MID-SPAN
AREA (NO TREES
SRP SET-UP MID-SPAN
AREA (NO TREES
SRP SET-UP MID-SPAN
AREA (NO TREES
SRP NO TREE ZONE
SRP NO TREE ZONE
2" DEPTH IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS
  DECOMPOSED GRANITE
1/2" MINUS MADISON GOLD
5 GALLON
  DESERT SPOON
DASYLIRION WHEELERII
5 GALLON
  RED YUCCA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
5 GALLON
  'DESERT CARPET' tm
ACACIA REDOLENS
1 GALLON
1 GALLON
  'GOLD MOUND'
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
5 GALLON
  ORANGE JUBILEE
TECOMA 'ORANGE JUBILEE'
5 GALLON
  MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
CAESALPINIA MEXICANA
5 GALLON
  'GREEN CLOUD'
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS
2" CALIP.(MULTI) 5'T, 3.5'W
  CASCALOTE (SRP / APS APPROVED)
CAESALPINIA CACALACO
2" CALIP., 5.5'T,4'W
  MULGA (SRP/APS APPROVED)
ACACIA ANEURA
1" CALIP. 6'T, 3.5'W
  WILLOW ACACIA
ACACIA SALICINA
2" CALIP., 6.5'T, 4.5'W
  DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
CERCIDIUM 'HYBRID'
CONSTRUCTION
  PROTECT FROM
EXISTING TREE
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
  TRAILING PURPLE
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
 
P.(602)265-0320
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
10450 N. 74th Street , Suite 120
SITE PLANNING
URBAN DESIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
T.J. McQUEEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EMAIL: timmcqueen@tjmla.net
CONSENT FROM TJMLA.
T.J. McQUEEN & ASSOC., INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
OBTAINING THE  EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION &
THEY TO  BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY  WITHOUT
COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE
THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED,  CHANGED  OR
(TJMLA) EXPRESSLY RESERVES  ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT
& OTHER   PROPERTY   RIGHTS IN  THESE  PLANS. 
COPIED IN 
FIRST
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET La.03
E
R
E
T
S
I
G
E
R
T
.
O
N
E
T
A
C
I
F
I
T
R
E
C
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
d
e
n
g
i
S
e
t
a
D
McQUEEN
TIMOTHY J.
27166
D
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
e
d
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
U
.
S
.
A.
E
I
P
X
E
R
S
3
2
0
2
/
0
3
/
6
0
05.02.23
2039 E RICE DR., TEMPE
AZ, 85283
480-589-3793
VINCE@DALKEDESIGNGROUP.COM
PROJECT FOR HARRISON PROPERTIES:
59th AVE. & LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD
PHOENIX AZ 85043
NUMBER            REVISION            DATE
SEAL
SHEET TITLE
ISSUE DATE
DRAWN
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWING NO.
REV
4.27.2023
La.02
PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

BUILDING 'B'
(98,985 S.F.)
BLDG. HGT. :  36'-10" AT THE RIDGE
FIN. FLR. EL.: 1019.4'
A-1 ZONING
A-1 ZONING
A-1 ZONING
PROPOSED
8'-0" PRIVATE
SEWER ESMT.
EX.
PP
EX.
PP
SES
T
T
SES
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
7'-0" OVERHEAD &
UNDERGROUND
POWER LINES
20'-0"
SRP
ESMT.
8'-0"
PUE
10'-0"
S/W
ESMT
11' 11' 6'
45'-0"
R.O.W.
32'-0"
B.S.L.
42+00
43+00
44+00
45+00
46+00
47+00
48+00
N0°09'39"E  1177.70'
S88°39'20"E  329.08'
FDC LOCATION
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP
AREA (NO
TREES
SRP SET-UP MID-SPAN
AREA (NO TREES
SRP SET-UP MID-SPAN
AREA (NO TREES
SCALE:
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1" = 30'-0"
SRP NO TREE ZONE
SRP NO TREE ZONE
SRP NO TREE ZONE
2" DEPTH IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS
  DECOMPOSED GRANITE
1/2" MINUS MADISON GOLD
5 GALLON
  DESERT SPOON
DASYLIRION WHEELERII
5 GALLON
  RED YUCCA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
5 GALLON
  'DESERT CARPET' tm
ACACIA REDOLENS
1 GALLON
1 GALLON
  'GOLD MOUND'
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
5 GALLON
  ORANGE JUBILEE
TECOMA 'ORANGE JUBILEE'
5 GALLON
  MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
CAESALPINIA MEXICANA
5 GALLON
  'GREEN CLOUD'
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS
2" CALIP.(MULTI) 5'T, 3.5'W
  CASCALOTE (SRP / APS APPROVED)
CAESALPINIA CACALACO
2" CALIP., 5.5'T,4'W
  MULGA (SRP/APS APPROVED)
ACACIA ANEURA
1" CALIP. 6'T, 3.5'W
  WILLOW ACACIA
ACACIA SALICINA
2" CALIP., 6.5'T, 4.5'W
  DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
CERCIDIUM 'HYBRID'
CONSTRUCTION
  PROTECT FROM
EXISTING TREE
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
  TRAILING PURPLE
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
 
P.(602)265-0320
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
10450 N. 74th Street , Suite 120
SITE PLANNING
URBAN DESIGN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
T.J. McQUEEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EMAIL: timmcqueen@tjmla.net
CONSENT FROM TJMLA.
T.J. McQUEEN & ASSOC., INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
OBTAINING THE  EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION &
THEY TO  BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY  WITHOUT
COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE
THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED,  CHANGED  OR
(TJMLA) EXPRESSLY RESERVES  ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT
& OTHER   PROPERTY   RIGHTS IN  THESE  PLANS. 
COPIED IN 
FIRST
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET La.02
E
R
E
T
S
I
G
E
R
T
.
O
N
E
T
A
C
I
F
I
T
R
E
C
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
d
e
n
g
i
S
e
t
a
D
McQUEEN
TIMOTHY J.
27166
D
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
e
d
..
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
U
.
S
.
A
.
E
I
P
X
E
R
S
3
2
0
2
/
0
3
/
6
0
05.02.23
2039 E RICE DR., TEMPE
AZ, 85283
480-589-3793
VINCE@DALKEDESIGNGROUP.COM
PROJECT FOR HARRISON PROPERTIES:
59th AVE. & LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD
PHOENIX AZ 85043
NUMBER            REVISION            DATE
SEAL
SHEET TITLE
ISSUE DATE
DRAWN
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NUMBER
DRAWING NO.
REV
4.27.2023
La.03
PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Landscape Plan
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

PHO-2-24--Z-62-13-7
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

City Council Formal Meeting
Minutes
February 21, 2018
Acreage: 37.21
Applicant: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer LLP
Owner: Airpark 30 LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer LLP
Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding expiration of special permit.
Location
Southwest corner of Central Avenue and Misty Willow Lane.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 23472 N. Central Ave.
Concurrence
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Deer Valley 
Village Planning Committee recommended approval by a 9-0 vote on 
Dec. 21, 2017.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer 
recommended approval on Jan. 17, 2018.
This item was adopted.
86
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application 
PHO-1-17--Z-62-13-7 - Approximately 1,320 Feet South of the 
Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road 
(Ordinance G-6419)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to approve 
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the 
City Council on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Dec. 
20, 2017.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-17--Z-62-13-7
Existing Zoning: A-1
Acreage: 35.0
Applicant: Red River 647 Holdings, LLC dba 59LBR
Owner: Newport Groups 22, LLC
Representative: Teresa Harvey
City of Phoenix
Page 82

City Council Formal Meeting
Minutes
February 21, 2018
Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with site 
plan and landscape plans date stamped Feb. 27, 2017.
2. Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding a minimum 75-foot building 
setback along the west and south property lines.
3. Modification of Stipulation 3 regarding a minimum 75-foot building 
setback along the west and east property lines.
4. Deletion of Stipulation 5 regarding an 8-foot decorative wall.
5. Deletion of Stipulation 6 regarding perimeter wall material and textural 
differences.
6. Modification of Stipulation 8 regarding outdoor storage within 250 feet 
of the north, south and west property lines.
7. Deletion of Stipulation 9 regarding a one-foot non-vehicular access 
easement along the west property line.
8. Deletion of Stipulation 10 regarding right-of-way dedication for the 
south half of Lower Buckeye Road.
9. Deletion of Stipulation 13 regarding right-of-way dedication for the 63rd 
Avenue Alignment.
10. Deletion of Stipulation 14 regarding right-of-way dedication for the 
proposed 63rd Avenue from Florence Avenue to Lower Buckeye Road.
11. Deletion of Stipulation 15 regarding right-of-way dedication for the 
east half of 63rd Avenue.
12. Deletion of Stipulation 16 regarding contacting Bruce Littleton.
13. Technical correction to Stipulations 18 and 19.
Location
Approximately 1,320 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue 
and Lower Buckeye Road.
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A
Concurrence
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen 
Village Planning Committee recommended approval with modified 
stipulations by a 8-0 vote on Oct. 17, 2017.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer 
took the case under advisement. The Planning Hearing Officer took the 
City of Phoenix
Page 83

City Council Formal Meeting
Minutes
February 21, 2018
case out from under advisement on Jan. 8, 2018 and recommended 
denial as filed and approved with modified stipulations and an additional 
stipulation.
This item was adopted.
A 
motion 
was 
made 
by 
Vice 
Mayor 
Pastor, 
seconded 
by 
Councilwoman 
Williams, to suspend the rules and hear Item 61 out of order. The motion 
carried by voice vote:
Councilman Nowakowski, Councilwoman Stark, 
Councilman Valenzuela, Councilman Waring, 
Councilwoman Williams, Councilwoman Gallego, Vice 
Mayor Pastor and Mayor Stanton
Yes:
8 - 
No:
0   
Councilman DiCiccio
Absent:
1 - 
61
Terminal 3 Food and Beverage and Retail Revenue Contract 
Solicitation Award Recommendation (Ordinance S-44289)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into 
Food and Beverage and Retail Concession Agreements at Phoenix Sky 
Harbor International Airport. The gross sales for all Agreements are 
estimated to produce $400 million over the 10-year term, resulting in 
approximately $51.6 million in revenue to the City.
Summary
On May 10, 2017, Phoenix City Council authorized the issuance of a 
Revenue Contract Solicitation (RCS) for four Concession Agreements 
(Agreement) opportunities in Terminal 3, two Food and Beverage and 
two Retail. The goals of the solicitation were to encourage competition, 
reflect the region and include national, regional, local brands and 
concepts, optimize sales and revenue, increase opportunity for local and 
small business participation, raise quality and uniqueness of souvenir and 
gifts merchandise, and phase implementation to coincide with the 
Terminal 3 Modernization construction schedule.
The four Agreement opportunities were designed to achieve a diverse 
and balanced concession program. The opportunities consist of nine 
Food and Beverage locations and eleven Retail locations. Successful 
respondents may only be awarded one Food and Beverage Agreement 
City of Phoenix
Page 84

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 1 
 
 
 
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION 
Teresa Hillner, Planner III, Hearing Officer 
Jazmine Braswell, Planner I, Assisting 
 
December 20, 2017 
 
ITEM 1 
 
 
DISTRICT 7 
SUBJECT: 
 
 
 
Application #: 
Z-62-13-7 
Zoning: 
A-1  
Acreage: 
35.0  
Location: 
Approximately 1320 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue 
and Lower Buckeye Road 
Proposal: 
1) Modification of Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance 
with site plan and landscape plans date stamped February 27, 
2017. 
2) Modification of Stipulation No. 2 regarding a minimum 75-foot 
building setback along the west and south property lines. 
3) Modification of Stipulation No. 3 regarding a minimum 75-foot 
building setback along the west and east property lines. 
4) Deletion of Stipulation No. 5 regarding an 8-foot decorative wall. 
5) Deletion of Stipulation No. 6 regarding perimeter wall material and 
textural differences. 
6) Modification of Stipulation No. 8 regarding outdoor storage within 
250 feet of the north, south and west property lines. 
7) Deletion of Stipulation No. 9 regarding a one-foot non-vehicular 
access easement along the west property line. 
8) Deletion of Stipulation No. 10 regarding right-of-way dedication for 
the south half of Lower Buckeye Road. 
9) Deletion of Stipulation No. 13 regarding right-of-way dedication for 
the 63rd Avenue Alignment. 
10) Deletion of Stipulation No. 14 regarding right of way dedication for 
the proposed 63rd Avenue from Florence Avenue to Lower 
Buckeye Road. 
11) Deletion of Stipulation No. 15 regarding right of way dedication for 
the east half of 63rd Avenue. 
12) Deletion of Stipulation No. 16 regarding contacting Bruce Littleton. 
13) Technical correction to Stipulation Nos. 18 and 19. 
Applicant: 
Red River 647 Holdings, LLC dba 59LBR 
Owner: 
Newport Groups 22, LLC  
Representative: Teresa Harvey

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 2 
 
 
 
ACTIONS: 
 
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took the case 
under advisement. The Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under 
advisement on January 8, 2018 and recommended denial as filed and approved with 
modified stipulations and an additional stipulation. 
 
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: At their October 17, 2017 
meeting, the Estrella Village Planning Committee recommended approval with 
modifications by an 8-0 vote. 
 
DISCUSSION:   
Ms. Teresa Harvey, developer representative for Central Freight Line Inc., provided a 
brief overview of the logistics company and their proposal of a new terminal at the 
corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road. She noted that the proposed 202 
freeway will run through the site included in the original PHO. Ms. Harvey was asking to 
modify the stipulations for the new parcel and was proposing to sell five acres off 59th 
Avenue for the development of a retail buffer for the logistics facility.  
 
Ms. Tricia Gomes noted that the rezoning case applies to the overall site, she explained 
that the stipulations pertaining to the overall zoning case would remain and those to the 
smaller piece would be modified as they would not have been applicable anyway.  
 
Ms. Gomes read the request beginning with stipulation number one regarding general 
conformance, which would be modified to the new date of September 20, 2017. For 
stipulation number two, the setback along the south would remain and the west would 
be remove. 
 
Ms. Harvey asked for clarification on whether the landscape setback would be required 
in addition to the building setback, she added that a 200-foot easement exists currently 
which she would be unable to build on anyway, which she would be okay with. 
 
Ms. Gomes clarified that she would want to retain the southern setback to assure 75 
feet of landscaping would be provided.  
 
Ms. Harvey agreed. 
 
Ms. Gomes continued with stipulation number three, which would retain the 75 foot 
building setback along the east and remove the west. 
 
Ms. Harvey asked if the 75-foot setback would remain along 59th Avenue. 
 
Ms. Gomes responded that that was correct, which was part of the original request’s 
intent.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 3 
 
 
 
Ms. Harvey added that the original case was for a high intense, industrial site, intended 
for a distribution center. She asked the Planning Hearing Officer if she would reconsider 
that decision as recent discussion to acquire the parcel to the east of 59th Avenue 
found they did not have the 75-foot building setback along the west. She added that a 
55 foot right of way easement already existed on the site and adding a 75-foot building 
setback for a retailer would be challenging. Making that almost the entire depth of the 
five acres.   
 
Ms. Gomes clarified that the 75-building setback would be total. Her proposal is retail 
but there are several industrial uses that would also be permitted. 
 
Ms. Gomes said she would revisit stipulation three. And continued with the following 
request of stipulation number five regarding an eight-foot decorative wall which would 
be deleted. She added that we could move forward with the deletion of stipulation 
number six as the only property line that impacts the site is to the south.  
 
Ms. Harvey explained that regarding stipulation eight, the only reason why they included 
storage was due to the City of Phoenix’s definition of storage which is any vehicle that 
goes unmoved for a period longer than 48 hours. She added that although this facility 
constantly has its vehicles in rotation there could be on certain occasions throughout the 
year weekends when the facility is closed due to holidays. The applicant and her team 
wished to include the storage as a precaution. 
 
As far as the south line, there is an SRP easement which is allowing them to park 
vehicles. With regards to the easement neighboring the residents, the applicant would 
be providing a basin and landscaping so she was alright with that.  
 
Ms. Gomes asked if the applicant would be okay with a clarification, so it’s clear if 
trailers were being parked over the weekend.  
 
Ms. Harvey responded that would be perfect. 
 
Ms. Gomes made the determination to delete the north and west as they do not impact 
the site, retaining the 250-foot limitation on the south and include language in the 
stipulation to read “with the exception of trailer storage not to be located closer than 200 
feet”. 
 
Ms. Harvey responded that she agreed. 
 
Ms. Gomes continued to address the remaining stipulations, stipulation nine would be 
deleted as Ms. Harvey’s property would not be abutting the west property line. She 
noted that the west side of the new property line would be the freeway. Stipulation 
number ten would be deleted as the site would not abut Lower Buckeye Road, she 
added that the City would still obtain the dedications once those sites developed as well 
as stipulation number 13.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 4 
 
 
 
Ms. Gomes addressed stipulation number 14 regarding right of way dedication, for the 
same reason stated, the site is not adjacent to 63rd Avenue, the stipulation would be 
deleted as well as stipulation number 15. She added that stipulation 16 would be 
deleted as our site was not next to to Lower Buckeye Road nor 63rd Avenue. The last 
two requests were technical corrections to revise stipulations which referenced 
department staff. Stipulation number 16 would remove Alan Hilty and stipulation number 
17 would remove Diane Gomez. Ms. Gomes explained that the reason for these 
technical corrections were for when staff changed. 
 
Ms. Gomes added that a comment was received from the Parks Department adding an 
archaeological stipulation, stating that “in the event of any archeological materials 
encountered during construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground 
disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the city archeologist 
and allow time for the archeological office to assess the materials”. 
 
Ms. Harvey replied that she was already in contact with Ms. Lorena, with the city’s 
archeology team. Stating that phase I had been completed. There had been artifacts 
found including one body which has since been reported. 
 
Ms. Gomes revisited stipulation number three regarding the 75-foot building setback 
along the west and east. Asking for clarification from the applicant.  
 
Ms. Harvey asked to be allowed to have A-1 setbacks along the east side of 25 feet. 
 
Ms. Gomes took the case under advisement to allow time to look at the zoning cases 
surrounding the site to assure consistency.  
 
Ms. Harvey stated that she appreciated the consistency and thanked the Planning 
Hearing Officer. 
 
FINDINGS: 
1. 
The applicant’s request and impacted property is only a small portion of the 
overall rezoning area. The stipulations directly impacting the applicant’s proposal 
have been modified while retaining the consistent streetscape for industrial 
properties given the eclectic mix of zoning within the Estrella Village planning 
area. 
 
2. 
While there is no adjacent residential zoning to the east of the proposed 
development, the city has consistently adopted Commerce Park development 
standards along the street. So the elimination of the 75-foot is not appropriate; 
however, a modification to the stipulation is similar to the adjacent industrial 
developments.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 5 
 
 
 
DECISION: 
The Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. The Planning Hearing 
Officer took the case out from under advisement on January 8, 2018 and recommended 
denial as filed and approved with modified stipulations and an additional stipulation. 
 
STIPULATIONS:  
 
 1. 
The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and 
landscape plans date stamped February 27, 2014, SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 as 
approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
 2. 
A minimum 75-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the west and 
south property lines and shall utilize the Commerce Park/General Commerce 
Park landscape standards for plant types, quantity and spacing, as approved by 
the Planning and Development Department.  
 
 
 3. 
COMMERCE PARK/GENERAL COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT 
STANDARDS A minimum 75-foot building setback shall be provided along the 
west and east property lines, as approved by the Planning and Development 
Department.  
 
 
 4. 
A minimum 125-foot building setback shall be provided along the south property 
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.  
 
 
 5. 
An eight-foot high decorative wall shall be constructed and set back a minimum 
of 75 feet from the west property line, as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department.  
 
 
 6. 
The perimeter walls adjacent to Lower Buckeye Road and 63rd Avenue shall 
include material and textural differences, such as stucco and/or split face block 
with a decorative element, such as tile, glass insets, or stamped designs, as 
approved by the Planning and Development Department.  
 
 
 57. 
Building height shall be limited to a maximum of 48 feet within 150 feet of the 
south property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 
 
 
 68. 
Outdoor storage shall not be permitted within 250 feet of the north, south and 
west property lines, EXCEPT FOR THE TRAILER STORAGE SHALL NOT BE 
LOCATED CLOSER THAN 200 FEET, as approved by the Planning and 
Development Department.  
 
 
 9. 
A one-foot non-vehicular access easement shall be provided along the west 
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.  
 
 
10. 
Right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the south half of Lower 
Buckeye Road. Provide full improvements consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalk, 
curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and incidentals for the length of the

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 6 
 
 
 
project.  
 
 
711. 
Submit amended Traffic Impact Study Analysis updated to proposed 
development use. Additional improvements may be stipulated based upon study 
findings.  
 
 
812. 
Right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 59th Avenue. 
Provide curb, gutter, paving, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and 
incidentals for the length of the project. 
 
 
13. 
Right-of-way totaling 50 feet shall be dedicated for the existing 63rd Avenue 
Alignment with a minimum 25-foot pavement section to service Williams Street. 
Provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and incidentals for the length of the 
project. 
 
 
14. 
Right-of-way totaling 60 feet shall be dedicated for the proposed 63rd Avenue 
from Florence Avenue to Lower Buckeye Road. Provide curb, gutter, paving, 
sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and incidentals for the length of 
the project. 
 
 
15. 
Right-of-way 30 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of 63rd Avenue. 
Provide curb, gutter, paving, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and 
incidentals for the length of the project.  
 
 
16. 
Contact Bruce Littleton (602-262-4690) for potential conduit and junction boxes 
at Lower Buckeye Road and 63rd Avenue for future signal equipment for the 
intersection. Submittal will be made as a separate document that shows the 
entire intersections with existing conduit runs and junction boxes. The 
Developer will submit the approved plan to the Civil Plans Coordinator as part of 
the civil engineering plan set. All work related to the construction or 
reconstruction of the signal, conduit runs and junction box installation is the 
responsibility of the Developer.   
 
 
917. 
The developer shall update all existing off-site street improvements (sidewalks, 
curb ramps and driveways) to current ADA guidelines.  
 
 
1018. Complete a Red Border Letter to notify ADOT of development adjacent to its 
freeway corridor and submit it to Alan Hilty in the Street Transportation 
Department 602-262-6193, with a copy to the Traffic Engineer and Civil Plans 
Reviewer.  
 
 
1119. Provide underground street light circuits, poles and fixtures on all public streets 
in locations approved by the Street Transportation Department. Submit one 
copy of the approved site plan with three copies of the streetlight plans to the 
2nd floor of City Hall to be routed to Street Lighting Section reviewer, Diane 
Gomez 602-262-7223.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of December 20, 2017 
Application Z-62-13-7 
Page 7 
 
 
 
1220. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development 
with paving, curb, gutter, setback sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscape 
and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and Development 
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility 
standards.  
 
 
13. 
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. 
 
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.  Please contact the Planning and Development 
Department, Tamara Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 or TTY use 7-1-1.