Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-39-21-6.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
39997 characters
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Camelback East Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date
September 7, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date
October 7, 2021
Request From:
R1-10 (0.48 acres)
Request To:
R-O (0.48 acres)
Proposed Use
Office
Location
Approximately 180 feet south of the southeast
corner of 44th Street and Clarendon Avenue
Owner/Applicant
High Place Investments, LLC
Representative/Applicant
Rod Jarvis, Earl & Curley P.C.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map
Designation
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Street Map
Classification
44th Street
Major Arterial
40-foot east half street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed development will allow for introduction of an office use while remaining
consistent with the residential scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Landscape setbacks and buffering vegetation will further help minimize the impact of
the new structure on adjacent single-family homes to the east.
Attachment B
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 2 of 12
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; LOCAL & SMALL
BUSINESS, LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate adaptive reuse of older,
underutilized properties to create mechanisms for new local and small
businesses to operate, thrive and grow.
The conversion of the property to an office use encourages the growth of a local
business that is appropriately located along a major arterial street.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
As stipulated, the development will provide mature shade trees along its 44th Street
frontage, as well as throughout its surface parking lot.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
44th Street Corridor Specific Plan – See Background Item No. 7.
44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study – See Background Item No. 8.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 10.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 11.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use
Zoning
On Site
Single-family residence
R1-10
North
Single-family residence
R1-10
South
Administrative and medical offices
R-O
East
Single-family residences
R1-10
West (Across
44th Street)
Real estate offices
C-O
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 3 of 12
R-O (Residential Office)
*if modifications or variance
required
Standards
Requirements
Provisions on the
Proposed site Plan
Building Setbacks
Front
20 feet
20 feet – Met
Side
10 feet
20 feet (south) – Met
20 feet (north) – Met
Rear
25 feet
63 feet – Met
Landscaping
Minimum 3 feet wide
landscape strip around
principal structure
Met
Lot Coverage
30%
17.4% - Met
Building Height
15 feet, plus 1 foot in
height per 1 foot
additional setback to a
maximum height of 25
feet
25 feet, with step-back
requirements met – Met
Parking
1 per 250 square feet net
floor area (16 spaces)
17 spaces – Met
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1.
This request is to
rezone a 0.48
acre site located
approximately 180
feet south of the
southeast corner
of 44th Street and
Clarendon Avenue
from R1-10
(Single-Family
Residence
District) to R-O
(Residential Office
– Restricted
Commercial
District) to allow
an office use.
Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 4 of 12
2.
The site has a General
Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. The same designation
exists on all sides of the
site and extends to all four
directions. Further north of
the subject site, north of
Clarendon Avenue, Public /
Quasi Public General Plan
Land Use Map designation
exists on a school site.
The proposal is not
consistent with the
Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre
designation. However, as
the site is under 10 acres,
therefore, a General Plan Amendment is not required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3.
The site is currently a single-family residence, which was built in the late 1950s,
according to historical aerial photos of the area. The original home had a
significantly smaller footprint, occupying the southeastern portion of the site. The
site underwent an addition in the late 1990s, and has remained unchanged since.
The surrounding neighborhood was developed similarly as single-family residential.
The character of this neighborhood has remained largely the same over the years,
with the exception of gradual transitions from single-family homes to residential
offices along 44th Street.
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Historical Aerial Maps
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 5 of 12
4.
The current zoning of
the subject site is
R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District).
The properties to the
north and east of the
site share the same
zoning designation.
The two properties
directly to the south
of the subject site
are zoned R-O
(Residential Office –
Restricted
Commercial District),
and the property to
the west, across 44th
Street, is zoned C-O
(Commercial Office –
Restricted Commercial District). The proposal is consistent with the gradual
transition of land uses along 44th Street to low intensity office uses.
5.
The proposed site plan depicts an approximately 4,000-square-foot building fronting
44th Street, with a surface parking lot in the rear of the property. The existing
driveway on the southwestern portion of the site will be removed and new vehicular
access is proposed via a shared driveway with the property to the north, which will
connect to visitor parking spaces on the northern portion of the property and with
the surface parking lot in the rear. The shared driveway configuration is desirable
as it reduces the overall number of driveways along 44th Street and is consistent
with the recommendations of the 44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study.
However, the property to the north has R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District)
zoning, which is a more restrictive district. Per Section 600 of the Phoenix Zoning
ordinance, the proposed driveway will require a variance to allow vehicular access
from and to a more restrictive district to a less restrictive district. As a variance is
needed, staff is not recommending general conformance to the conceptual site
plan.
The subject site abuts single-family residences along its rear property line, to the
east of the proposed surface parking area. Given the parking requirements for the
site and limited space to allow for a large landscape setback that could
accommodate large buffer trees, staff is recommending that the landscape setback
depicted on the site plan (minimum four feet) be planted with minimum 8-foot-tall
shrubs or plants to provide a tall vegetative buffer from those residences. This is
Zoning Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 6 of 12
addressed in Stipulation No. 4. Staff is further recommending that detached
sidewalks be provided along 44th Street, per Stipulation No. 2.
Although no signage is currently proposed, a stipulation prohibiting internally lit
signs is recommended to help maintain the residential character of the area. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 6. Non-internally illuminated signage is also a
recommended design feature of the 44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study,
which is further discussed in Item No. 8. More information on the 44th Street
Corridor Residential Office Study can be found in Background Item No. 7.
6.
The proposed conceptual building elevations depict a two-story building with a
maximum height of 25 feet. The elevations include several architectural design
elements that break up the building mass, such as expansive glass windows,
vegetative trellis that extends to the second story, balconies, variation in roof height,
and columns. The proposed building design is in keeping with the contemporary
architectural style that is becoming increasingly more widespread in the Camelback
East Village and the proposed building height is in keeping with the permitted height
of a single-family residential zoning district. As such, staff is recommending general
Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Pinnacle Design Inc.
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 7 of 12
conformance to these building elevations, which is addressed in Stipulation No. 1.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
7.
44th Street Corridor Specific Plan
Completed in 1991, the 44th Street Corridor Specific Plan established a framework
to provide compatibility of new development along 44th Street from McDonald Drive
to Sky Harbor International Airport. The plan acknowledges that existing conditions
are not favorable for single-family residential land use along 44th Street due to
increasing traffic. Similarly, these properties are candidates for change of use in
order to create a physical buffer between the established residential neighborhood
and the street.
Design guidelines contained in the plan recommend providing a 10-foot minimum
landscape setback along 44th Street between Camelback and Osborn Roads. The
proposed development exceeds this recommendation, providing a minimum 20-foot
Conceptual Elevations
Source: Pinnacle Design Inc.
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 8 of 12
landscape setback. In addition, implementation strategies encourage providing
increased pedestrian connectivity along the corridor in addition to the canal edges.
By detaching the sidewalk along 44th Street and providing mature trees to shade
the sidewalk, the project is consistent with the recommendations of the plan.
8.
44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study
The 44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study was completed in 1997 to
determine the applicability of the Residential Office Zoning District for properties
within the 44th Street Corridor. The plan details that a combination of high traffic
volumes, closeness of houses to the street and difficulty of driveway access are
poor livability factors for the continuation of residential uses adjacent to 44th Street.
A property inventory and analysis was completed as part of the study. The 111
residential properties along 44th Street were assigned a score level of 1 through 3.
A level 1 score indicated that the site was suitable for standalone office. Level 2
specified that a consolidation of two or more properties would be necessary for R-O
development, whereas a score of level 3 indicated that a site was not suitable for
conversion to office development. The subject site was assigned a level 2 score,
with a note that the size of the lot can accommodate parking needs. The Study
encourages the use of shared driveways to ultimately reduce the number of
driveways along 44th Street. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation,
with the removal of the southernmost driveway and a new, shared driveway with the
property to the north.
The 44th Street Residential Office Study also outlines recommended design
guidelines for R-O properties, which include enhancing the appearance of the
property while still conforming to the character and size of adjacent residential
properties and limiting the visible commercial aspects of the R-O site. The proposed
development will replace the existing structure on the site with a two-story building
that will have a maximum height of 25 feet. Single-family residence districts permit
a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet. The building will be of a contemporary
architectural style while maintaining a residential character. Further, as stipulated,
the development will not have any internally lit signage, which will minimize the
commercial aspect of the site.
9.
Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. Staff is recommending that robust landscaping be
planted along 44th Street, along with vegetative groundcovers to provide a
minimum of 75 percent ground coverage. Staff is also recommending that the
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 9 of 12
surface parking lot area be planted with trees to provide minimum 25 percent shade
at maturity, with the flexibility to utilize structural shade where trees can’t be
planted. Finally, staff is recommending that all pedestrian pathways be shaded at
75 percent at maturity to ensure shade and thermal comfort for pedestrians. These
recommendations are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3, 5, and 10.
10.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe pedestrian
streetscape along 44th Street, staff is recommending detached sidewalks shaded
with trees on both sides, as well as bicycle parking located near the building
entrance. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 7.
11.
Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance expand its recycling and other waste
diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes
standards to encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily,
commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The proposal will
utilize regular trash and recycling bins.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
12.
At the time this staff report was written, staff received two letters in opposition and
one letter in support of the project. Those opposed cited concerns with traffic
generation and two-story building height. The letter of support came from
representatives of the Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
13.
The Phoenix Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems
with this case and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire
Code.
14.
The Public Transit Department has requested that the developer provide clearly
defined, accessible pathways that connect all building entrances and exits, and
public sidewalks, and, where pedestrian paths cross drive aisles, that they be
constructed of materials that visually contrast with parking and drive aisle surfaces.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9. This department has further
requested that all pedestrian paths and sidewalks be shaded at 75 percent at
maturity. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
15.
The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer provide a
10-foot sidewalk easement along the east side of 44th Street, that a minimum 5-
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 10 of 12
Findings
1.
The proposal is consistent with recommendations of the 44th Street Corridor
Specific Plan and the 44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study.
2.
The proposal will provide an opportunity for a new small business to locate in the
Camelback East area and serve the surrounding neighborhood.
3.
The proposed rezoning will allow for conversion of a residential property adjacent to
a major arterial to a viable office use.
Stipulations
1.
The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
June 14, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
2.
The public sidewalk along 44th Street shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees that provide a minimum 75 percent
shade at maturity.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve minimum 75 percent live coverage.
foot-wide detached sidewalk be provided along the east side of 44th Street, that a
shared access agreement be recorded for the shared drives, and that all streets be
constructed with all required improvements and comply with current ADA
standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2, 11, 12, and 13.
OTHER
16.
The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33 feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
17.
Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 11 of 12
3.
A minimum 20-foot landscape setback shall be required adjacent to 44th Street and
shall include large canopy shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings
between the sidewalk and proposed site development, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be minimum
four-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum three-inch caliper.
Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at mature size, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
4.
A minimum 4-foot landscape setback shall be required along the eastern property
line. This setback shall be planted with minimum 8-foot-tall shrubs or plants to
provide a tall vegetative buffer from adjacent single-family residences to the east,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5.
All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning
and Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees
and structural shade.
6.
There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7.
A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master
Plan.
8.
Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9.
Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10.
Trees shall be placed to provide 75 percent shade coverage on all pedestrian paths
and sidewalks at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Shade structures may be used to meet the shade requirement in
places where trees are unable to be located.
11.
The developer shall record a cross-access agreement for any shared access drives
along 44th Street.
Staff Report: Z-39-21-6
August 30, 2021
Page 12 of 12
12.
The developer shall dedicate a 10-foot sidewalk easement and construct a
minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk and landscape strip along 44th Street, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
13.
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
14.
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.
Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
August 23, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Site plan date stamped June 14, 2021
Elevations date stamped June 14, 2021
Community correspondence (6 pages)
Z-68-08
Z-23-83
*
*
*
PUD
R-4
C-O
R1-10
Z-44-18
C-1
R1-6
R1-6
R-O
OSBORN RD
44TH ST
45TH PL
43RD PL
44TH PL
CLARENDON AVE
INDIANOLA AVE
45TH ST
43RD ST
MITCHELL DR
WHITTON AVE
WELDON AVE
7TH ST
24TH ST
40TH ST
32ND ST
16TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
48TH ST
56TH ST
64TH ST
SR 51
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-39-21
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
0.48 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
R1-10
R-O
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
1
1
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
2
N/A
High Place Investment- Brent Nardecchia
DATE:
7/2/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 16-38
ZONING MAP
H-11
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: R1-10 ( 0.48 a.c.)
TO:
R-O ( 0.48 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-39-21.mxd
Z-39-21
0.05
0
0.05
0.025
Miles
Z-68-08
Z-23-83
*
*
*
PUD
R-4
C-O
R1-10
Z-44-18
C-1
R1-6
R1-6
R-O
OSBORN RD
44TH ST
45TH PL
43RD PL
44TH PL
CLARENDON AVE
INDIANOLA AVE
45TH ST
43RD ST
MITCHELL DR
WHITTON AVE
WELDON AVE
7TH ST
24TH ST
40TH ST
32ND ST
16TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
48TH ST
56TH ST
64TH ST
SR 51
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-39-21
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
0.48 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
R1-10
R-O
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
1
1
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
2
N/A
High Place Investment- Brent Nardecchia
DATE:
7/2/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 16-38
ZONING MAP
H-11
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: R1-10 ( 0.48 a.c.)
TO:
R-O ( 0.48 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-39-21.mxd
Z-39-21
0.05
0
0.05
0.025
Miles
** & *&** $ #!(**
*
*
'% ) $"*
*
>o
lo
mo
/o R
Coi
*
*
*
o
2(=VZ?JYo
*]?G1o=LWo
*
*
*
*
O88?;n
Bb&' & !3o
%TM)SO`N0o )T4)
0S@a5o
*^fg0hKYo *
X2\-).E o
P<O6LAc
o )S=eOJ)o +"=+o
0S=a2I)do P)a2So
jo #o );o
,_=H0=JYo V9 o
ko V:o
;Oa2S)Y2 o
jo o
P)UFALYo U7Q o
ko $o V:o
P)SF=MYo PTOaA060
o
o
PSOD2.[o
0)Z2o
[P Xs
Is 03s7s
) ) )% )%)
) # " & )) )
)
$ '#!
A!A!s %hs
/s [!P !X!s`as
037s
(s [cP cUcs
nJs 04sQ
[PbUs k
)
()
ls ALPPX0s m
,0s7s
[#P #X#s
K s
os ps g
037s q
ALPPXs0s 's
d_
,07s 9&r
A!A!s
i s
VCR?NE]
s ;s 85*-8s
1- **5=S
6e8e1-
[P X!s
H
03s7s j
ALPPX0s )s
,07s
A"A"s f
QsQs
<TW^YFBD\sWGOO:<M@s>@ZFBOsFO<$s2+2.s
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Aaron Carpenter <accadpi@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 24, 2021 10:07 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Kiva # 21-50 Rezoning of 3609 N 44th St
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
To: Sofia Mastikhina
From: Aaron Carpenter
Dear Ms. Mastikhina,
I am a long‐time resident of the neighborhood just east of 44th street near the proposed rezoning of 3609 N 44th to a
two‐story office building and would like to voice my opposition to the project.
There are two main oppositions I have to this project:
First: Over the last several years, commercial businesses have encroached into our neighborhood bringing dangerous
traffic and increased trespassing. We have many small children who used to enjoy playing outside, riding bikes etc. Now
we are more concerned than ever because there is more traffic each day using our neighborhood to cut through to 44th
street in efforts to bypass intersections and areas where commercial businesses have built large complexes.
Another two‐story complex will undoubtedly add to these dangerous and unwanted traffic concerns.
Second: There are homes that would be directly impacted by anything other than a single‐story building on 44th
street. We have multiple multiple‐story commercial businesses surrounding our once peaceful neighborhood (Hospice
of the Valley at Indianola and 44th street being the most recent). Having a multiple‐story buildings with office space
overlooking private backyards is unacceptable. These homes have small children who play in their backyards and
families who bought their lifetime homes long before a two‐story commercial business were built or zoned. To have
either the blight of the back of a building or strangers looking into their backyards where small children and families play
is unacceptable and potentially dangerous.
Please do not approve the rezoning of 3609 N 44th Street, it is completely unwanted a d wholly unsupported by the
surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedence to have more large commercial buildings
where there are still residential homes established.
Could you please put me on the list for the zoning hearings and if I need to redirect my concerns to another
representative please let me know.
Sincerely,
Aaron Carpenter
3625 N 45th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602)751‐8848
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Tracy Snelling <tsnelling3@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 24, 2021 10:32 AM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Subject:
Kiva # 21-50 Rezoning of 3609 N 44th St
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
to: Sofia Mastikhina
From: Tracy Snelling
Dear Ms. Mastikhina,
I am a long-time resident of the neighborhood just east of 44th street near the proposed rezoning of 3609 N 44th to a two-
story office building and would like to voice my opposition to the project.
There are two main oppositions I have to this project:
First: Over the last several years, commercial businesses have encroached into our neighborhood bringing dangerous
traffic and increased trespassing. We have many small children who used to enjoy playing outside, riding bikes etc. Now
we are more concerned than ever because there is more traffic each day using our neighborhood to cut through to 44th
street in efforts to bypass intersections and areas where commercial businesses have built large complexes.
Another two-story complex will undoubtedly add to these dangerous and unwanted traffic concerns.
Second: There are homes that would be directly impacted by anything other than a single-story building on 44th
street. We have multiple multiple-story commercial businesses surrounding our once peaceful neighborhood (Hospice of
the Valley at Indianola and 44th street being the most recent). Having a multiple-story buildings with office space
overlooking private backyards is unacceptable. These homes have small children who play in their backyards and families
who bought their lifetime homes long before a two-story commercial business were built or zoned. To have either the
blight of the back of a building or strangers looking into their backyards where small children and families play is
unacceptable and potentially dangerous.
Please do not approve the rezoning of 3609 N 44th Street, it is completely unwanted a d wholly unsupported by the
surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedence to have more large commercial buildings where
there are still residential homes established.
Could you please put me on the list for the zoning hearings and if I need to redirect my concerns to another representative
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Tracy Snelling
3625 N 45th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(978)-844-2728
1
Sofia Mastikhina
From:
Rod Jarvis <rjarvis@EarlCurley.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 24, 2021 1:19 PM
To:
Sofia Mastikhina
Cc:
msantoro@earlcurley.com
Subject:
FW: neighborhood meeting
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Sofia,
Please note the email trail set forth below. AONA, through its representatives, Neal Haddad and Wally Graham, will be
supporting our request for R‐O zoning at 3609 N 44th St.
Please note also their concerns regarding the property to the north of us. We will do all in our legal power to help with
the issue Mr. Graham outlines below, however, as noted, that power will be limited. It may be that the City of Phoenix
yet has some legal power to require a grading and drainage plan from this property owner, as the owner has undertaken
some construction work on site. That is not within our purview to determine, however. We will ensure we have an
adequate plan in place for our site.
Thanks for the City’s work on this case—Rod Jarvis
From: Wallyz Wallyzzgram [mailto:wallyzzgram@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 1:03 PM
To: Rod Jarvis
Cc: Neal Haddad
Subject: Re: neighborhood meeting
Rod:
I appreciate your response. Not trying to make things harder for you or your client. Just trying to ensure the
city's Planning and Development Department does its job to ensure there is proper water retention design on
both lots. The owner of 3623 may be a buddy of your client; however, he has not been responsible in terms of
following codes and ordinances. He has occupied the building for over a year, and vehicles appear there every
day. The building is being used for some purpose. and I assume whatever he is doing is a legal use. But the
windows are still covered with construction plastic and they are filthy. Although the building itself looks nice,
it still looks like the building is under construction. Perhaps he does not have the money to get a drainage plan
completed, but if he applies for an RO rezoning, you can bet your ass AONA is going to ask the PDD for a
certified drainage plan.
I am hoping your clients can talk with your neighbor and get him to do a certified drainage plan in advance of
construction of your project. My biggest concern for your guys is that a site drainage plan will be required at
3623 N. 44th.after you've completed your construction of the shared driveway and your parking lot. If there is a
drainage issue that driveway may have to be taken out and regraded. Your guys should ask and answer the
question of who is going to pay for that if it happens.
If he applies for RO, I don't expect him to work with us as you did, but we are going to insist he follows the
rules. Just because the other units have been converted to RO, there is no precedent or guarantee that says every
2
building can convert to RO. He must apply and meet the specifications for a rezoning. As you know, every
case stands on its own.
Wally.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:26 AM Rod Jarvis <rjarvis@earlcurley.com> wrote:
Hi Wally,
Thanks for your very kind words of encouragement. I am grateful to be able to work with you and Neal, as
you serve your neighbors and candidly communicate your concerns with me. Moreover, I must point out my
client deserves the bulk of any credit in this matter; I do not always have a client who is willing to commit to
work in this way.
I will relay your concerns to my client and we will see what cooperation we can get from the neighbor to the
north. As you have indicated, that might present some challenges. Whatever plan our engineer comes up with
will have to be approved by him.
However, I do believe we can adequately demonstrate what we will do on our site to handle run-off from his
site that comes to our site. Beyond that, I don’t know that we have much leverage. As you point out, however,
it may be the City has some leverage if there is illegal construction on his site, through the enforcement powers
of the City.
I will confer with my client and get back to you.
Thanks again. And let’s plan on getting together to break bread at Kneader’s soon—Rod Jarvis
On Jun 23, 2021, at 10:58 AM, Wallyz Wallyzzgram <wallyzzgram@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rod:
Neal and I talked yesterday. We agreed AONA can support you and your client with the application to rezone
the property at 3601 N 44th St. from R1-10 to RO.
The discussions we have had, your continuous engagement in sharing what your client intends to build on the
property helped us decide that AONA can support the project with one exception; and that is there is a lack of
detail with regard to drainage and water retention of the property north of your client’s property, 3623 N 44th.
St. (Lockett Investments). That property, as you know slopes from northwest to southwest back toward the
alley. That means in heavy rain conditions, water will flow across that property into the alley.
Your final plan shows a shared driveway with the northern neighbor. In earlier discussions, you showed the
shared driveway, and a single driveway as options. As you know, we have some concerns about the 3623 N.
44th St. property that has been under construction for almost three years. As we said, that project was begun
without a permit. It took neighborhood intervention for the owner to be forced to meet zoning and
construction requirements. When we discussed the shared driveway concept late this spring, we shared our
concerns. In this note you restated your assumption that the property owner will also apply for a rezoning at
3
some point in the future. AONA will deal with that when it comes up; however, we will raise our concerns
now because we are not confident that adjacent owner will deal with the issues and address the matter. Since
your plans show a joint driveway between your properties and your client is working in conjunction with
Lockett Investments on the design (and I assume a mutual agreement use contract) to share property
driveways, we think this is one small matter that should be raised and resolved as part of your client’s
application. Our interests are in getting something in writing and having a drainage plan before the shared
driveway is approved. That shared driveway impacts water retention and water flow to the alley and onto your
clients' property, so it is part of your design and a matter of discussion that hopefully will be resolved as we go
through your rezoning hearings. I am certain we will work that out if the process continues as well as it has
gone over the past few months. Is it possible to get a certified drainage and water retention plan for that
northern property and your client's shared driveway?
We’ve appreciated your active engagement with us since you approached AONA last spring. We also valued
your client’s willingness to listen to and consider our input and answer our questions on things such as
landscaping; screening the properties along the eastern edge; on-site water retention basin; maximum height,
lighting; and heat sink considerations your client made by deciding to go with pavers instead of asphalt in the
parking lot. These may be small things, however, it showed you and your client’s willingness to open your
design before it became stuck in the mind, and to resolve concerns before the design was etched in stone and
much harder to change. In our opinion, that is the type of communication rezoning projects should have
between neighbors, zoning attorneys, and their clients. The process worked for everyone. It has been a
pleasure to work with you. I wish more attorneys and developers would take time to respectfully work to
inform neighbors in advance of hearings. You did an excellent job. Thank you.
Regards,
Wally Graham
AONA Zoning Committee Member
On Jun 21, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Rod Jarvis <rjarvis@earlcurley.com> wrote:
Gentlemen,
You may have seen the notice go out for the virtual neighborhood meeting.
At this point, we seem to be in a reasonable place relative to our immediate neighbors, east,
northeast and southeast. At least, we have heard nothing further, though I have reached out
repeatedly.
I gather the information I’ve forwarded to you from the engineer and architect has adequately
answered the questions you both have raised.
4
As this proceeds, if you become aware of any concerns I need to address, either your own, or
those of some neighbor(s), please let me know.
Thanks again for your labors on this case, and on behalf of the area generally.
--Rod Jarvis
Rodney Q. Jarvis
Partner
Earl & Curley
(602) 265-0094
3101 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
www.earlcurley.com [earlcurley.com]
<image001.jpg>
<image002.png>
This message and any and all attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, duplication, retention, or unauthorized use of this information is strictly prohibited and no privilege has been waived by
your inadvertent receipt. Please notify the sender immediately and then completely delete this message and any and all attachments. Thank you.