Attachment F - VPC Action Summaries - Z-TA-5-23-Y.pdf

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting 
August 7, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
9-5
VPC DISCUSSION:
Abram Bowman, Diane Petersen, and Regina Schmidt joined the meeting during this 
item, bringing the quorum to 14 members. 
Staff Presentation: 
Adrian Zambrano, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing 
current terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr. 
Zambrano shared the proposed changes to the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, including 
allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for duplex 
and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for most 
districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections 
further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard unless a use permit is 
obtained, and fixing references to guesthouses and other sections of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zambrano then discussed different types of ADUs, including 
detached ADUs and attached ADUs. Mr. Zambrano noted that ADUs would be allowed 
to be two-stories within the building envelope, outside of the required setbacks, and 
would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height within the required rear yard, unless 
a use permit is obtained. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment would not 
prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached garage. Mr. Zambrano then 
shared the proposed development standards for ADUs. Mr. Zambrano shared the 
timeline for the text amendment, the results of the other Village Planning Committees 
(VPCs) that heard this text amendment last month, and Planning Commission results. 
Mr. Zambrano stated that staff recommends approval per the language in Exhibit A of 
the Addendum A staff report.  
Questions from the Committee: 
Mr. Goodhue asked for clarification that building ADUs and other detached accessory 
structures still cannot go beyond the maximum lot coverage. Mr. Zambrano responded 
ATTACHMENT F

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
affirmatively, noting that it could only go beyond the maximum lot coverage allowed if a 
variance is obtained.  
 
Diane Petersen asked if the access to the ADU has to be outside of the primary 
dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the unit could still have 
a door connecting to the primary dwelling unit, but it is required to have access outside 
of the primary dwelling unit.  
 
Chair Popovic asked for clarification that Homeowners Associations (HOAs) can 
prohibit ADUs. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the City may still 
permit ADUs in communities with HOAs because the City does not look at the 
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of all the different HOAs throughout 
the City and only looks at the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance based on what is allowed 
throughout the City. Mr. Zambrano added that it would become an enforcement issue 
with the HOA if an individual did not get HOA permission prior to seeking permits from 
the City. 
 
Marc Soronson asked if the City knows what happened recently at the Arizona 
Governor’s office related to short-term rentals. Mr. Zambrano responded that he is not 
sure what happened. Mr. Zambrano added that there is an upcoming amendment to the 
Phoenix City Code regarding short-term rentals to address the recent Arizona State 
laws that passed about what cities could regulate regarding short-term rentals.  
 
Mr. Goodhue asked if the text amendment would still require ADU applicants to record 
a restrictive covenant requiring the property owner to live in either the ADU or the 
primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that this language 
was vetted through the Law Department. Mr. Zambrano added that the restrictive 
covenant would also require the property to either be sold or rented as a whole rather 
than individually.  
 
Ms. Petersen stated that HOAs can prohibit short-term rentals and asked why the City 
cannot. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs can restrict ADUs but is unsure if they can 
restrict short-term rentals due to the State laws. Ms. Petersen stated that HOAs can 
restrict them. 
 
Chair Popovic asked if the concern with short-term rentals is wanting longer-term 
occupants of the unit. 
 
Ms. Petersen stated that there was a proposed modification to restrict the time of 
occupancy to 30 days. 
 
Chair Popovic asked what the minimum time allowed would be to rent a short-term 
rental that is not located within an HOA. Mr. Zambrano responded that with the 
proposed text, there would be no time limit for one of the units, as long as the property 
owner lives within the other unit. Mr. Zambrano explained that the restrictive covenant to 
require the property owner to live in either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit was a

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
way for the City to be able to limit the number of short-term rentals, since investment 
companies would not be able to live within one of the units.  
 
Mr. Goodhue asked if the restrictive covenant would still be accepted if it is signed by a 
business, such as an LLC. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure. 
 
Ms. Petersen asked why this text amendment was initiated. Mr. Zambrano responded 
that it was initiated per the direction of City Council and the Housing Phoenix Plan, 
which was adopted in 2020, to allow increased density throughout the City in order to 
increase housing supply. Ms. Petersen stated that the problem with the housing supply 
is that many properties are bought by short-term rental companies.  
 
Mr. Goodhue asked if the text amendment was being pushed through due to proposed 
State bills that would have allowed the State to dictate what is allowed for ADUs instead 
of the City. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, adding that the City is limited in 
terms of restrictions on short-term rentals due to the State laws. 
 
Jennifer Hall asked if the text amendment is approved, if ADUs can be constructed 
without any zoning public hearing process. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Ms. 
Hall expressed concerns with allowing ADUs on all lots with single-family homes 
throughout the City. 
 
Chair Popovic stated that a majority of individuals throughout the City would probably 
not be able to afford to build an ADU. 
 
Ms. Hall stated that she did not understand the motivation behind this due to concerns 
with how ADUs will affect neighborhoods. 
Chair Popovic stated that there would likely not ever be ADUs on every single lot with 
single-family homes due to the costs associated with building an ADU.  
 
Ms. Hall expressed concerns with there being no control over ADUs due to no use 
permit or other public hearing process being required for ADUs. 
 
Mr. Wise asked why additional parking is not required for ADUs and expressed 
concerns with more on-street parking and traffic congestion. Mr. Zambrano explained 
that required parking cannot be located within the front yard setback area, so if a 
parking space is required, most single-family lots would not have anywhere to place an 
extra parking space. Mr. Zambrano added that single-family homes require two parking 
spaces, which would be located within the garage behind the front yard setback area, 
leaving two guest parking spaces in the driveway for the ADU. Mr. Wise responded that 
some garages are filled with junk which results in those two cars parking in the 
driveway.  
 
Mr. Goodhue stated that if he rented out an ADU, he would not allow the renters to 
park in the driveway. Mr. Goodhue asked if part of the text amendment still included 
increasing the allowable percentage of the front yard area for driveways. Mr. Zambrano 
responded affirmatively.

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Ms. Hall asked for clarification that the Planning Commission recommended approval 
per the staff recommendation and did not include any of the direction or modifications 
recommended by other VPCs. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.  
 
Anna Sepic commented that areas with smaller lots, such as areas with R1-6 zoning, 
already have issues with parking. Ms. Sepic expressed concerns with not requiring 
additional parking for ADUs and diminishing the character of neighborhoods.  
 
Mr. Goodhue concurred. Mr. Goodhue added that there were enforcement issues the 
City had in the past of people using accessory structures to live in, which the text 
amendment would legalize. 
 
Ms. Sepic asked what distinguishes a dwelling unit as being considered a dwelling unit. 
Mr. Zambrano responded that the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as 
specifically having cooking facilities. Mr. Zambrano added that currently, building plans 
for accessory structures are reviewed to ensure it is not labeled as a casita, 
guesthouse, or ADU, and to ensure no rooms are labeled as a bedroom or kitchen, and 
the approval note would usually state that the structure cannot be used for sleeping, 
living or cooking.  
 
Mr. Goodhue asked if there was any discussion to restrict the primary dwelling unit to 
be owner-occupied. Mr. Zambrano responded that the restrictive covenant would 
require the property owner to occupy either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit. Mr. 
Goodhue stated that the property owner could live in the ADU and rent the primary 
dwelling unit for an unaffordable price.  
 
Chair Popovic argued that there is a missing middle housing problem.  
 
Ms. Sepic criticized the process for this City-wide text amendment, noting that it was 
not a strategic plan to allow ADUs on any lot with a single-family home and to require no 
additional parking. Ms. Sepic added that there are villages with major parking issues 
and violations. Ms. Sepic stated that the text amendment should have been to allow 
ADUs only for specific lots that actually have the capabilities to build an ADU. 
 
Public Comments: 
None. 
 
Staff Response: 
None. 
 
MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
Ms. Hall motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Ms. Petersen seconded the 
motion. 
 
VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
9-5; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y passes with Committee members 
DeMoss, Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Sepic, Wise, and Mortensen in

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 5 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
favor and Committee members Bowman, Bustamante, Soronson, Ward, and Popovic 
opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 10, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation  
VPC Vote 
9-4 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
1 member of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.  
2 members of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
John Roanhorse, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on the 
development and adoption of accessory dwelling units. Mr. Roanhorse provided a brief 
history of the text amendment and the City Council’s response to provide housing 
options. Mr. Roanhorse provided information on definitions, types, zoning, and 
development standards, lot coverage and the allowance of ADU’s in additional zoning 
areas. Mr. Roanhorse displayed examples of ADU configurations, sizes, projections, 
setbacks, dimensions and standards that will be applicable for residential development. 
Mr. Roanhorse noted associated parking and accessibility to ADU’s if they are 
developed. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the schedule for the text amendment review at the 
Villages, Planning Commission and City Council. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Kleinman inquired if there is a property with a detached garage 
can that structure become an ADU. Mr. Roanhorse responded that yes a garage could 
become an ADU as long as it complies with the requirements for life safety and fire 
code to allow someone to reside there. Mr. Kleinman commented that a garage would 
then be in the category of being allowed to be transferred to an ADU. Mr. Kleinman 
asked if an ADU could be constructed and used as a business. Mr. Chris DePerro, 
staff responded that home occupation is already allowed on residential property, a 
business in an attached structure requires a use permit. Mr. Kleinman asked if a 
homeowner built an ADU then chose to reside there could the primary house be 
converted into a community type group home without a permit. Mr. DePerro responded 
that group homes with 5 residents or more require a special permit. 
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez asked if a single-family home does not have a garage can it be 
converted to an ADU for aging relatives. Mr. DePerro responded that garages are not 
living spaces and the text amendment grants permission to allow ADU without making

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the process more difficult. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment allows an 
increase in lot coverage. Vice Chair Rodriguez commented that accessory structure 
permitting should not take too long to allow residential structures and occupancy. Vice 
Chair Rodriguez asked about the setbacks for ADU’s. Mr. DePerro responded for an 
ADU the side yard setback would have to be met and with an alley the setback would be 
0. Mr. DePerro noted that there are some existing accessory structures and the setback 
would not require any additional action.  
 
Committee Member Mahrle asked about short-term rentals and this has not been a 
problem when owners live in the primary home and noted how the City of Flagstaff 
responded to the issue. Mr. DePerro responded that the intent of the text amendment 
was to prevent a primary residence and an ADU to be rented separately however state 
law limits the City’s authority, so a covenant requirement was included as a requirement 
for an ADU.  
 
Committee Member Benjamin commented that this is the first time the city has 
expressed the existence of short-term rentals.   
 
Chair Wagner asked what public outreach was done to get input for the text 
amendments. Mr. DePerro responded that there was pressure from the state level and 
there were initial information only sessions at the Village Planning Committee meetings 
and these interactions would promote the dissemination of information to gain more 
public feedback. Chair Wagner asked if the information only session were open to the 
public and was notice provided. Mr. DePerro responded that notice was given for the 
meetings and information on the text amendments were made available to the public. 
Chair Wagner noted that when the information only presentation was provided at the 
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting there was no quorum. Chair Wagner 
commented the text amendment information is lengthy and thanked Mr. DePerro for his 
work and asked does this action remove single family zoning in Phoenix. Chair Wagner 
asked if traditional zoning has been for single-family with only one family on a lot and 
will there be anywhere in Phoenix where this will still exist. Mr. DePerro respond that the 
text amendment is intended for an accessory unit to a primary unit for residential 
purposes to provide a housing option. Mr. DePerro stated that accessory units have 
been developed prior to this text amendment increases the lot coverage but does not 
change much more and this action allows an accessory use. Chair Wagner noted that 
many homes in the historic districts have existing accessory units that were done many 
years ago and certain neighborhoods like Willo there have been questions about ADUs. 
Chair Wagner stated that many residents in historic districts have asked what the ADU 
can be used for and the text should include provisions to all existing units to become 
legal with little effort for homeowners. Mr. DePerro responded that if existing ADU’s 
meet the requirements for setbacks in the rear yard and side yard and they were 
permitted they would be considered legal nonconforming.  
 
Committee Member Kleinman asked how do ADU impact HOA’s and how would a 
new ADU be developed in a historic district and who would take the lead on a historic 
property. Mr. DePerro responded that ADU’s do not have an impact on HOA’s the 
City’s zoning code does not have the ability effect what an HOA does. Mr. DePerro

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
responded that for historic preservation the required development review will be 
conducted by the Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Kleinman asked that if a certificate of 
appropriateness will still be required for an ADU and would this change the timeline for 
development. Mr. DePerro responded that the timeline may not change for a historic 
preservation review. Mr. Kleinman commented that the review process for historic 
preservation is a cumbersome and timely process.  
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez asked in a historic area if a swimming pool was added would 
that be subject to an historic preservation review. Ms. Helena Ruter, staff responded 
that it would not require a historic preservation review. Vice Chair Rodriguez asked if 
installing a 12-foot-deep pool would not need a review but an ADU would require a 
review. Ms. Ruter stated that some reviews in the past have been approved over the 
counter and this might be something that can be reevaluated. 
 
Mr. Kleinman asked about the number of permitted ADUs. Ms. Ruter responded that 
presently there are none but currently an accessory units up to 600 square feet have 
been approved over the counter.  
 
Mr. Tedhams asked about a lot of 10,000 square feet and can you build an ADU up to 
3,000 square feet and is only one ADU allowed per property. Mr. DePerro responded 
that one ADU is allowed for a single family detached lot and if a lot is 10,000 square feet 
or more 3,000 square feet is the cap or 10 percent of the lot area. Mr. Tedhams asked if 
the text amendment allows only one ADU per residential lot. Mr. DePerro responded 
that yes only one is allowed.  
 
Ms. George asked about the public outreach process for the Village Planning 
Committees and what has taken place. Mr. DePerro responded that conducting 
presentations at the Village Planning Committee Meeting has been one method of 
outreach to neighborhoods. Mr. DePerro noted that when the Village Planning 
Committees were initiated, they would be the first outreach and by interacting with 
neighborhoods and their established networks they would provide information. Mr. 
DePerro noted that the Village Committees are the first line in working with 
neighborhoods.  
 
Chair Wagner asked about special planning districts and overlays and will these be 
superseded by this text amendment. Mr. DePerro responded that with any overlay 
district or special district what is more restrictive is what is applicable. Chair Wagner 
asked about the applicability of the historic preservation review and it appears that the 
text amendment may override the historic preservation requirements because the 
language is imprecise. Chair Wagner noted that language has been put forward that 
explicitly says where there is conflict historic preservation shall prevail and is there a 
way this language can be added to the text amendment. Mr. DePerro responded yes 
that additional language can be added but additions can be applicable to certain 
portions of the ordinance. Mr. DePerro stated the requirements for historic preservation 
apply everywhere and in all cases for zoning. Chair Wagner asked why historic 
preservation was added to certain sections and does not make it clear. Mr. DePerro 
responded that there are areas where historic preservation has been added to allow

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
permission and exempt plans from review but a historic preservation review is still 
required. Chair Wagner noted that the code is written for the public not just people at 
the counter and in Section 706, it is not clear that a project will have to be reviewed by 
historic preservation and the assertion the review is either or is a concern. Mr. DePerro 
responded that all accessory structures where it is applicable have to go through a 
historic preservation review. Chair Wagner commented that with the information 
discussed does any language need to be changed. Mr. DePerro responded no but he 
has the feedback and the language will be evaluated for consideration and clarity. Chair 
Wagner commented the historic preservation issue is a sticking point.      
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez asked when there is a change in leadership will there be a 
change in the internal processes of how projects will be reviewed. Mr. DePerro 
responded that he has served under many directors and the policy and process will 
remain the same and the addition of historic preservation was intended to provide 
clarity. 
 
Mr. Tedhams asked if a detached garage is already set up to live in why would it be 
required to go to the city and is it now required for new developments. Mr. DePerro 
responded that it is not needed and this proposed action allows an entitlement and may 
not be a factor however when a property is sold the evaluation may require a 
determination if a structure was permitted. 
 
Mr. Procaccini asked if the text amendment was passed with stipulations with the 
addition of the information provided by the Phoenix Historic Neighborhood Coalition 
would that be a detriment. Mr. DePerro responded not directly to granting permission 
but in the long term there could be confusion about where historic preservation is 
applicable if is noted in one section in not in another and the requirement of a historic 
preservation review will always remain.      
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
Cory Kincaid introduced himself as a resident of Phoenix for 15 years and has been 
involved with ADU’s for the last 5 years. Mr. Kincaid stated he is pleased that this text 
amendment is moving forward. Mr. Kincaid stated that small living spaces have been 
legal in many communities and it is a good option and housing prices is a factor in 
residential development and availability. Mr. Kincaid stated he supports this text 
amendment and thanked the Committee.  
 
Susan Edward with the Arizona Neighborhood Alliance introduced herself. Ms. 
Edwards stated the proposed text amendment could be a disaster and this could be a 
potential solution to increase housing. Ms. Edwards noted that SB 1350 prohibits 
municipalities and counties from regulating short term rentals and SB 1487 provides 
measures for complaints and review. Ms. Edward stated that any stipulation developed 
by the city are not going to avoid any complaints or lawsuits. Ms. Edward noted there 
are numerous ADU’s in the state and only a few are licensed. Ms. Edwards noted that 
there is no penalty mechanism set up and how will this be addressed and the city has 
no resources for enforcement. Some cities have established requirements for short term

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 5 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
rentals and had to resend the requirements because they violated the state laws. Ms. 
Edwards stated this text amendment is a disaster and will require a state level solution.  
 
Neal Haddad introduced himself and referenced a letter prepared by the Neighborhood 
Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Mr. Haddad stated there is some confusion about how the 
text amendment has been prepared and there were some language suggestions on 
language and other improvements. Mr. Haddad stated there are many issues with the 
text amendment that have been identify by many who have reviewed the proposed 
amendment. Mr. Haddad stated that approving the text amendment as approved would 
be a problem and there are many concerns. Mr. Haddad stated there are concerns with 
outreach and how it was conducted. Mr. Haddad presented at 15 committee meetings 
and noted that each village has differing contacts and connections and there needs to 
be more citizen participation.  
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are many issues that have been discussed and 
that the City has taken great steps to provide information and has received and 
extensive volume of comments and these will be reviewed and considered. 
 
Mr. DePerro noted there is an additional action regarding short term rentals that is not 
zoning related, the City Code is being amended to adopt the strictest regulations that 
the state will allow for licensing, and this may impact short term rentals and there is 
much more happening.  
 
Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification on state requirements and taxation for short term 
rentals. Mr. DePerro stated this text amendment is zoning entitlement to allow an ADU 
on your property and talks about accessory uses. Mr. Cardenas asked if there is only 
one chance for review and will there be an opportunity to make changes in the future if 
there are unintended consequences. Mr. DePerro responded from the meeting tonight 
the recommendations will be reviewed and the amendment will go to the Planning 
Commission for further review and discussion and finally to the City Council for action. 
 
MOTION:  
Committee Member G.G. George made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-
Y. Chair Opal Wagner seconded the motion.  
  
Chair Wagner stated that the text amendment as proposed is a sweeping change for 
the City of Phoenix and there are many existing ADU’s and it would be beneficial to 
have an approval process in place. Chair Wagner stated there should be considerably 
more outreach for the text amendment and would like to see more and there is no 
enforcement process and the addition of historic preservation language as intended is 
not suitable. Chair Wagner noted Vice Chair Rodriguez comment about making 
adjustments with stipulations and that would not be sufficient.  
 
Committee Member Mark Cardenas made a substitute motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-
Y per the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez seconded the motion.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 6 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
DISCUSSION: 
Mr. Tedhams commented that the use of ADU’s is an opportunity and should be 
allowed for more residential options and the zoning language is adequate.  
 
Mr. Mahrle stated that he does not support either text amendment and that the 
Committee should recommend that the City should look at the historic preservation 
requirements carefully.  
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that there has been due diligence on the text 
amendments and things will change with ongoing review and it could be better and this 
action will have a positive impact on residents and it should be voted on as is. 
 
VOTE: 
9-4; motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with 
Committee Members Benjamin, Cardenas, Jewett, Kleinman, Picos, Procaccini, 
Searles, Tedhams and Vice Chair Rodriguez in support; with Committee Members 
Doescher, George, Mahrle, and Chair Wagner opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3
rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
 
July 10, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval with direction 
VPC Vote 
7-1 
 
VPC DISCUSSION:  
 
Staff Presentation:  
 
Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department, 
provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment, gave examples of 
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed standards for new ADUs, 
provided a timeline for the proposal, and presented the staff recommendation to 
approve. 
 
Questions from Committee:  
 
Dean Chiarelli noted that the proposed text amendment would put a strain on the 
neighborhoods and that he had concerns regarding the parking and the lack of data 
used to support the text amendment. Mr. Chiarelli also noted that there should be a 
maximum number of ADUs in a street. Ms. Gomes noted that the definition of 
affordable housing would be addressed in the next text amendment and the current text 
amendment does not place affordable restrictions on ADUs. Ms. Gomes also provided 
the definition of affordable housing that is present in the text amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y. 
Mr. Chiarelli noted that the ADU text amendment was on the right path but that it would 
not solve the housing issue.  
 
JoAnne Jensen stated that the proposed text amendment has structural concerns 
regarding parking, traffic, water, sewer, and electric. Ms. Jensen noted that there are 
concerns with emergency service accessibility. Ms. Jensen added that there are 
community concerns regarding the role of the committee. Ms. Jensen noted that it felt 
that the community has lost its decision-making power and will be ignored. Ms. Jensen 
added that this text amendment would not adequately address the housing issues in the 
City. Ms. Gomes noted that the text amendment is not an absolute solution to the 
housing issue. Ms. Gomes added that ADUs would be a tool and an option to address 
the housing issue in the City.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Carlos Ortega stated that some ADUs can be used for recreational activities and asked 
what neighborhoods can do to tackle issues such as ADUs used for parties. Mr. Ortega 
noted that the term affordable housing used in the text amendment could cause issues 
and asked if the wording could be changed. Mr. Ortega added that he had concerns 
with parking, fire safety, and how are regulations going to be enforced. Ms. Gomes 
noted that ADUs are required to go through a full review. Ms. Gomes noted that the fire 
and police department will have access to all structures on a lot. Ms. Gomes added that 
the property owner should have control over tenant behavior and that there are laws to 
assist in any nuisance situations. Ms. Gomes noted ADU parking can be provided in the 
driveway, but that it would not be required.  
 
Patrick Nasser-Taylor asked what research was done to support ADUs. Ms. Gomes 
stated that the Phoenix Housing Plan encourages an increase in housing stock within 
the City and ADUs are just one option that is offered but are not meant to solve 
affordable housing. Ms. Gomes noted that staff analyzed the Tucson, Flagstaff, and the 
current Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Gomes added that staff analyzed the 
requirements in different cities and applied it to Phoenix’s structure. Mr. Nasser-Taylor 
asked how the city would enforce the owner occupied portion of the proposed text 
amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that before a building permit for the ADU is provided, 
the owner must a recorded owner occupied document. Ms. Gomes stated that 
Neighborhood Services Department can enforce the requirement, or the surrounding 
neighbors could sue the owner. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked how ADUs would affect 
property taxes. Ms. Gomes noted that it would be assessed as a single-family.  
 
Rebecca Perrera stated that she had concerns with short-term rentals and parking. Ms. 
Perrera asked if staff has a worst-case scenario once the text amendment is approved 
and provided a theoretical lot size. Ms. Gomes stated that the majority of the lots are 
less than 10,000 square feet which would limit ADUs to 1,000 square feet. Mr. Ortega 
noted that small lots would be unable to build ADUs. Ms. Gomes added that the lot 
coverage was slightly increased to accommodate the construction of an ADU.  
 
Vice Chair Hurd asked what percentage of homes would be able to build an ADU. Ms. 
Gomes noted that an exact percentage can not be provided. Ms. Gomes added that the 
city is allowing for the construction of an ADU, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that 
everyone can afford an ADU.  
 
Jennifer Rouse stated that she has concerns with the crime, short term rentals, and 
violations of covenants. Ms. Gomes noted that property owners have the right to rent 
out their property to any individual and that that would be beyond the realm of the text 
amendment.  
 
Public Comment:  
 
Phil Hertel stated that ADUs should be reviewed and approved in a case-by-case basis 
rather than through a city-wide text amendment. Mr. Hertel noted that there should be a 
limitation on the number of ADUs per street or neighborhood. Mr. Hertel added that 
ADUs will add to issues with street parking. Mr. Hertel noted that street parking and 
excessive parking will prevent fire from accessing a house or an ADU. Mr. Hertel stated 
that parking had to be addressed in the text amendment. Mr. Hertel stated that he 
agreed with Committee Member Ortega’s comments and noted that there should have 
been extensive outreach and public meetings.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Dan Penton, on behalf of the LCRD, stated that the LCRD has received a letter from 
the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Mr. Penton stated that he was in 
support of the letter submitted by the coalition. Mr. Penton noted that the LCRD 
supported the proposed parking regulations and short-term rentals. Mr. Penton added 
that the there should be coordination between HOAs and staff proposing the text 
amendment.  
 
Jack Purvis asked if HOAs would be able to supersede the provisions allowed per the 
text amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that if an HOA has a regulation restricting ADUs 
then the homeowner would have to oblige by those rules. Mr. Purvis asked HOAs could 
amend their regulations to address ADUs. Ms. Gomes confirmed. Mr. Purvis asked if 
recreational vehicles (RVs) or tiny homes are already permitted. Ms. Gomes noted that 
people are unable to live in RVs and tiny homes can be converted to ADUs.  
 
Mr. Hertel asked how parking would work in a cul-de-sac. Mrs. Gomes stated that 
single-family residential houses are required to have two parking spaces outside of the 
front yard setback. Mr. Hertel noted that that is not realistic as people use garages for 
storage.  
 
Committee Discussion:  
 
Mr. Ortega stated that enforcement of regulations is not enough to make sure ADUs do 
not negatively impact neighborhoods.  
 
Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that the wealthy would be the ones capitalizing from ADUs.  
 
Ms. Jensen noted that the committee has been focusing on extreme cases. Ms. Jensen 
stated that she agreed with other member’s comments but that the ADUs would help.  
 
Ms. Perrera stated that she agreed with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
letter. Ms. Perrera stated that she would support a motion to approve the text 
amendment with the proposed changes in the letter.  
 
Motion:  
Rebecca Perrera motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with direction to 
incorporate the changes in the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter of 
recommendation with respect to accessory dwelling units. Jennifer Rouse seconded 
the motion.  
 
Ms. Gomes noted that staff has also receive the letter. Ms. Gomes added that if a 
property is designated as historic, then Historic Preservation must review the plans. Ms. 
Gomes stated that ADUs would still have to comply to Historic Preservation and the 
proposed standards. Ms. Gomes noted that the letter states to provide parking in the 
driveway. Ms. Gomes reiterated that required parking is not allowed in the front yard 
setback. Ms. Gomes stated that the current State law allows for short-term rentals and 
the text amendment would require the property owner to live on the site.  
 
Ms. Perrera stated that the changes proposed in the letter could be a good starting 
point and that she would like to retain her motion.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Vote:  
7-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with direction passed with 
Committee Members Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in 
favor and Committee Member Nasser-Taylor in opposition.  
 
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 10, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval per the staff recommendation with direction 
VPC Vote 
14-0 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
One member of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed 
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Starks asked about the process and standards for obtaining a 
use permit to exceed the 15-foot height limit in the rear yard. Mr. Grande replied with 
the standards for use permits. 
 
Committee Member Uss stated that short-term rentals have been an issue in other 
cities allowing ADUs and other cities have implemented rules to mitigate issues with 
short-term rentals. Mr. Grande stated that the proposed text includes a requirement for 
the property owner to live on the property or not allow subleasing of the property. 
 
Committee Member Olivas expressed support for ADUs and noted concerns about 
the speed of the process for implementing the text amendment. 
 
Committee Member Sherman expressed support for the text amendment and asked 
about compliance with the new registration process for short-term rentals. Mr. Grande 
stated that he didn’t have any information available on the issue. 
 
Committee Member Sonoskey asked about the lot coverage increase. Mr. Grande 
replied that the lot coverage is increased overall and also allows additional lot coverage 
for a property with an ADU. Mr. Sonoskey asked about historic preservation concerns

Central City Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 10, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
raised by correspondence sent to the committee. Mr. Grande stated that the proposed 
text does not remove the requirement for a historic property to go through HP review. 
Sarah Stockham, staff, replied by reading the requirement for HP review in Chapter 8 
of the zoning. 
 
Committee Member Martinez asked about compliance checks. Mr. Grande described 
the development review process. 
 
Committee Member Greenman stated concerns about the lack of public input on the 
text amendment, the availability of infrastructure in the city to support ADUs, and a 
preference for a smaller pilot program, rather than a citywide proposal. Mr. Grande 
replied that infrastructure capacity is reviewed when site plans are reviewed by the city. 
 
Committee Member Gaughan expressed concern about short-term rentals and stated 
it would be good to stay ahead of the curve on infrastructure. 
 
Committee Member Uss stated that a similar proposal in Tucson had issues because 
of the parking requirements, noting there may be amendments to this proposal in the 
future. 
 
Chair Gonzales asked why R-O districts were excluded. Mr. Grande stated he didn’t 
know the reason for excluding that particular district. 
 
Committee Member Panetta asked about how modifications to the text amendment 
will be made going forward. Mr. Grande replied that modifications could be made at 
any point in the process up until the City Council adoption.  
 
Committee Member Olivas asked for clarification on the historic preservation 
requirements of Chapter 8 as it relates to the concerns raised by the letter submitted to 
the committee. Ms. Stockham replied that the concerns are addressed by the 
requirement for HP review in Chapter 8. 
 
Committee Member Dana Johnson asked about ADUs providing basement space. 
Mr. Grande replied that it would be possible and that height limits are based on the 
height from the ground level. 
 
Committee Member Sherman stated that more staff will be needed to process 
building permits as a result of this request. Mr. Grande stated he wasn’t aware of any 
proposed staffing changes. 
 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
Tom Mulhern introduced himself and stated that the proposal should provide 
additional housing inventory but that the deed restriction requirement could hinder that 
goal. He further stated that the city will need a more streamlined approval process, as

Central City Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 10, 2023 
Page 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the proposal will likely overwhelm city staff. 
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
Anthony Grande stated the goal with the deed restriction requirement. 
 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 
Committee Member Olivas provided a clarification regarding the Housing Phoenix 
Plan. 
 
Committee Member Sherman stated that the deed restriction requirement is a helpful 
component of the proposal. 
 
Committee Member Panetta stated that ADUs should be considered for a self-
certification process. 
 
Committee Member Uss stated that existing structures should be subject to more 
minor permits than for new structures. 
 
Committee Member Burns asked if a streamlined permit review process could be 
included in the text. Mr. Grande replied that it would be more appropriate as an internal 
process. 
 
MOTION 
Patrick Panetta made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff 
recommendation with direction that the city investigate short term rental regulations, 
utility and parking capacity, and a permitting process for ADUs. Zach Burns seconded 
the motion for approval per the staff recommendation with direction.  
 
Committee Member Sonoskey asked if long term rentals are an issue. Mr. Sherman 
replied that they are not an issue, but short-term rentals are more concerning. 
 
Committee Member Olivas stated that enforcement is difficult with absentee 
landlords. 
 
Committee Member Uss stated that studies showed that 88 percent of ADUs are used 
to provide additional housing stock. 
 
VOTE 
14-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation with 
direction passed, with Committee Members Burns, Burton, Gaughan, Greenman, 
Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez, Olivas, Panetta, Sherman, Sonoskey, Starks, Uss, and 
Gonzales in favor. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval per the staff recommendation with 
modifications passes 
VPC Vote 
15-0 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item in support. 
1 member of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition. 
 
Chris DePerro, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on the 
development and adoption of accessory dwelling units. Mr. DePerro provided a brief 
history of the text amendment and the City Council’s response to provide housing 
options. Mr. DePerro provided information on definitions, types, zoning, and 
development standards, lot coverage and the allowance of ADU’s in additional zoning 
areas. Mr. DePerro displayed examples of ADU configurations, sizes, projections, 
setbacks, dimensions and standards that will be applicable for residential development. 
Mr. DePerro noted associated parking and accessibility to ADU’s if they are developed. 
Mr. DePerro discussed the schedule for the text amendment review at the Villages, 
Planning Commission and City Council. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE: 
 
Mr. O’Malley noted the text amendment appears to be a part of various sweeping 
additions that have come before the Committee and asked if ADU’s are appropriate for 
every neighborhood in Phoenix and asked about the review process. Mr. DePerro 
responded the text amendments came from Council direction to the Planning and 
Development Department based on the Housing Phoenix Plan to provide residential 
options. Mr. O’Malley asked about the applicability of a deed restriction placed on 
property and what is an interior suite. Mr. DePerro described an interior suite and that 
the text amendment would remove that description. Mr. DePerro discussed the 
conditions that were developed by the City of Flagstaff in response to short term rentals 
that includes a restrictive covenant to allow owner occupancy and provisions for rental 
conditions. Mr. O’Malley asked how will enforcement of ADU’s be conducted for rentals.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. DePerro responded that enforcement would be conducted through Neighborhood 
Services and covenants would have written agreement that would be court enforceable. 
 
Ms. Augusta inquired about the required 3-foot setback for ADU’s. Mr. DePerro 
responded that an existing setback for the rear yard for an ADU is 3 feet and 0 feet if 
there is a dedicated alley. Ms. Augusta asked for clarification on setbacks for corner 
lots. Mr. DePerro responded that for corner lots with a side street the setback would be 
10 feet. Ms. Augusta asked if ADU’s would be a tax revenue for the City of Phoenix. Mr. 
DePerro responded that he is not familiar with the taxation but did note that Maricopa 
County does the property assessment and typically with an increase of square footage 
taxes do increase with the evaluation of property.  
 
Ms. Schmieder asked about the information provided by the Neighborhood Coalition of 
Greater Phoenix and will there be a response to their comments. Mr. DePerro 
responded that he could respond to any or all the comments from the Committee. 
 
Chair Swart stated that questions from the public may be the same questions from the 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix and the Committee would hear all 
comments and questions presented to allow the City to respond.   
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 
 
Kirin Goff introduced herself as a homeowner and was born and raised in Phoenix and 
stated she is in favor of allowing ADU’s. Ms. Goff stated her family has a home and 
extended family who may move to Phoenix in the future and an ADU would be ideal for 
her family situation. Ms. Goff noted that she is an Associate Professor of Practice and 
Director of the Applied Health Policy Institute at the University of Arizona and has some 
experience in housing supply and demand and allowing ADU’s would be an efficient use 
of residential space. Ms. Goff noted that she would be available to assist and provide 
information if necessary and thanked the Committee.  
 
Patricia Powell introduced herself and expressed that she resides on Edgemont 
Avenue and asked if the City had all the discussion information in one location with 
summary bullet points that could be disseminated to the community. Ms. Powell also 
asked about parking and with the addition of and ADU is there a way to prevent parking 
on the street which would interfere with the enjoyment of the neighborhood street. Ms. 
Powell also expressed concern about the proposed building height of ADU’s and how it 
would impact the adjacent neighbors. Ms. Powell expressed concern that the text 
amendment approach is a one size fits all and may not have positive impacts overall 
and enforcement will be difficult.  
 
Chair Swart stated he would like a response to the comments and would like 
information made available so citizens would not have to seek out public records 
requests and asked that the information on the text amendments be available and 
citizens may obtain it easily.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. DePerro responded that information sheets are available and have been updated 
with the feedback and discussion obtained from the first information only presentations. 
Mr. DePerro stated he would provide the available information as requested. Mr. 
DePerro mentioned that ADU’s will be allowed at 1 story up to 15 feet in height and this 
is applicable to other structures on the site. Mr. DePerro responded that no additional 
parking was added for ADU’s as it may be prohibitive for development.  
 
Neal Haddad introduced himself as a member of the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater 
Phoenix and stated a position statement was prepared by the organization and provided 
to the Committee. Mr. Haddad stated they support ADU’s and the work that Mr. DePerro 
has done because they have a positive effect on housing supply however their certain 
elements that need to be revised to avoid any unintended consequences including 
historic preservation and special overlay planning districts. Mr. Haddad noted that 
parking needs to be addressed and discussed restricted and regulated parking 
conditions. Mr. Haddad expressed concern with short term rentals and restricted 
covenants which is not sufficient. Mr. Haddad mentioned that the text amendments do 
not coordinate with Homeowner Associations and CC & R’s. Mr. Haddad asked the 
Committee to carefully review the revised language that has been provided by the 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix request that the text amendment be 
approved with provisions. Mr. Haddad expressed that text amendments need earlier 
involvement so details can be vetted before coming to the Village Planning Committee.  
 
STAFF RESPONSE: 
 
Chris DePerro responded that HOA’s are a function under state statue and the City 
cannot regulate these items. Mr. DePerro noted that HOA’s can regulate things that are 
above and beyond what the City allows and it would not be necessary to add additional 
provisions.  
 
Ms. Schmieder asked if a reference could be added to the text amendment noting the 
Arizona Revised Statue in doing this it would be helpful for people who are not familiar 
with land use and zoning law. Mr. DePerro responded that the proposed text 
amendment contains cross references and when certain provisions are included may 
create confusion, but the City’s legal department may consider certain additions. Ms. 
Schmieder stated that parking does need to be addressed within the scope of the text 
amendment. Mr. DePerro responded the addition of a parking requirement would make 
ADU’s prohibitive, but it would be something that will be considered.    
 
Ms. Beckerleg Thraen commented that parking is more associated to use and that in 
certain situations parking may not be an issue and the City’s approach is 
understandable.  
 
Ms. Schmieder commented that the discussion at the March 2023 Planning 
Commission Meeting there was an emphasis on getting the text amendments done as 
soon as possible and some of the details were not complete and relied on elements 
from other cities. Ms. Schmieder stated the information provided by the Neighborhood 
Coalition of Greater Phoenix has been more thorough and responsive. Mr. DePerro

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
responded that he was responsible for much of the text amendment as presented and 
noted historic preservation is included and the review that will be applicable without a 
site plan review. Mr. DePerro explained the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for 
Historic Preservation provide greater authority for review and avoid double review 
situations. Mr. DePerro discussed short term rentals and the method for allowing them 
to get permitted as available housing stock.  
 
Ms. Augusta commented that this is not the first time the Committee has heard about 
ADU’s, this has been on ongoing process. Ms. Augusta expressed that people should 
have options for housing and ADU’s will provide opportunity for available housing for 
different populations and improve neighborhood walkability.   
 
Mr. Grace commented on parking associated with ADU’s. Mr. Grace noted parking on 
the street where there is more frontage and in areas where lots are narrower, and 
people will have to adapt to the increasing number of ADU’s.   
 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: 
 
None.  
 
MOTION 
 
Committee member Dawn Augusta motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y 
per the staff recommendation. Committee member Rhonda Beckerleg Thraen 
seconded the motion. 
 
Mr. Paceley stated he supports the amendment and requested a friendly amendment 
noting the information provided by the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
should be included in the recommendation for approval.  
 
Ms. Beckerleg Thraen asked if the friendly amendment is to include all of the 
provisions provided by the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Mr. Paceley 
stated that some of the language should be adjusted and the letter should be part of the 
recommendation. Ms. Beckerleg Thraen responded that only certain provisions should 
be included and noted the cross references may not be suitable for the text amendment 
as presented. Mr. Paceley stated the language is acceptable and provided a highlighted 
copy as improvements to add to the text amendment.  Ms. Beckerleg Thraen ask if the 
language can be reviewed as the amendment moves forward to the Planning 
Commission and requested friendly amendment be and acknowledgement of the added 
provisions. Mr. Paceley was agreeable to the acknowledging and referencing parts of 
the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter as part of the friendly amendment.  
 
Chair Swart stated that it would be best to attach the letter from the Neighborhood 
Coalition of Greater Phoenix as an exhibit to the Committee’s recommendation for 
review by the legal department from the City and the Planning Department. Mr. Paceley 
agreed with the request.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 5 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Ms. Eichelkraut stated that there was discussion on two statutes and certain language 
would be adjusted to avoid any added cross referencing that would create confusion. 
Ms. Eichelkraut stated that the letter would be an appendix to the text amendment. Mr. 
Paceley responded that there are issues as stated in the letter that are important and 
should be acknowledged and considered for the text amendment.  
 
Chair Swart asked Ms. Augusta if the friendly amendment was acceptable which was 
acknowledged and confirmed. Chair Swart asked Ms. Beckerleg Thraen if the friendly 
amendment as introduced was acceptable and Ms. Beckerleg Thraen agreed with the 
friendly amendment.  
 
VOTE 
 
15-0; motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation with modifications 
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg 
Thraen, Czerwinski, Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, O’Malley, Paceley, 
Schmieder, Wilenchik and Swart in favor. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
 
Staff notes that VPC approval will include correspondence from the Neighborhood 
Coalition of Greater Phoenix for acknowledgement and consideration for changes to the 
proposed text amendment.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
5-4 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. 
 
Committee Member Gary Kirkilas joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum 
to 9 members. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed 
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the three-foot rear setback requirement. Mr. 
Grande provided clarification. Committee Member Santoro noted that it is the 
standard for other allowed projections. Mr. Grande agreed. 
 
Committee Member Nowell asked about projections for overhangs. Racelle Escolar, 
staff, responded that she will look it up and get back to the committee. 
 
Committee Member Powell asked about lot coverage requirements. Mr. Grande and 
Ms. Escolar reviewed the proposed changes to lot coverage. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave asked whether ADUs could be built in the front yard. Mr. Grande 
replied that they wouldn’t be able to project into the front yard and detached ADUs are 
not allowed in front of a home. 
 
Committee Member Nowell asked about the concerns raised in the letters provided to 
the committee. Mr. Grande described the historic preservation requirements of the

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 11, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
zoning. Ms. Escolar stated that the city is reviewing the recommendations and the 
committee could include them in their recommendation. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he didn’t think making recommended modifications to 
the text was worthwhile because the next reviewers were only interested in whether 
VPCs approved or denied the request. 
 
Ms. Escolar replied to an earlier question, saying that the zoning requires 2 feet of 
separation between the roof overhang and the rear property line. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that three feet is very close to the lot line for an ADU. 
 
Committee Member Israel asked about side yards. Mr. Grande replied that side yards 
would be maintained for ADUs. 
 
Committee Member Santoro asked about leasing for short-term and long-term 
rentals. Mr. Grande replied with the proposed requirement for a deed restriction. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that it doesn’t seem likely that the state government is 
going to enact legislation regarding ADUs soon, adding that there is room for new 
development on undeveloped land in the area and that adding ADUs in existing 
neighborhoods will turn them into slums. 
 
Committee Member Nowell asked if the text would supersede HOA restrictions. Mr. 
Grande replied that the text does not intend to do so. 
 
Chair Bowser stated that there should be an architectural requirement, that the one-
story limit in the rear yard is good, and that there should be a way to prevent two ADUs 
from being built on one lot. 
 
Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification on the process when a committee 
makes a recommendation with stipulations. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the 
Planning Commission will listen for items that are in Desert View but not for citywide 
items. Mr. Grande provided clarification on the process of forwarding 
recommendations to the Planning Commission. 
 
Michelle Santoro asked what other village have been saying about this proposal. Mr. 
Grande and Ms. Escolar responded with the results from other villages. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave asked about Open Meeting Law requirements. Mr. Grande 
discussed Open Meeting Law requirements. 
 
Committee Member Israel stated that the VPC has a responsibility to provide 
feedback on the proposal, adding that parking could be an issue. Mr. Grande reviewed 
the proposed provision for additional parking space allowed in the front yard. Mr. Israel

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 11, 2023 
Page 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
followed up with a question about design elements. Mr. Grande reviewed the proposed 
requirement for design review. Chair Bowser suggested that the language be updated 
to include an ADU visible from the neighboring property. Mr. Nowell stated that the 
language is broadly defined and could be more specific. Mr. Grande stated that design 
review is intended to have some flexibility. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
Larry Whitesell introduced himself as a member of the Neighborhood Coalition of 
Greater Phoenix and stated that the text needed to be revised, as stated in the letter 
submitted by NCGP. He reviewed the proposed modifications, including requirements 
for historic properties, parking, short-term rentals, and HOAs. 
 
Jackie Rich introduced herself and stated that it wasn’t clear if the ADUs could be 
used for other uses or how the new ADU zoning text would be enforced. 
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
Mr. Grande stated that it’s important to recognize that accessory structures are already 
allowed and that this text is allowing accessory buildings to be used as dwelling units 
with cooking facilities. He further stated that the city has enforcement mechanisms for 
every aspect of the city’s zoning and other codes. 
 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 
Vice Chair Lagrave asked if the text is allowing construction that is already permitted. 
Mr. Grande replied that it mostly is, except that the text would allow cooking facilities in 
a separate space to be considered a unit. 
 
Chair Bowser stated that he liked the proposal to require off-street parking for an 
ADU. 
 
Committee Member Santoro suggested adding a parameter for parking to the text, 
noting that she is supportive of ADUs, but there should be limits on short-term rentals. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Planning Commission gets 15 recommendations, 
one from each VPC, and it’s impossible to look at all of them. He added that they will 
focus on whether VPCs voted to approve or deny. 
 
Committee Member Kirkilas stated that it would be impactful if multiple VPCs made 
the same recommended modifications. Committee Member Israel agreed that 
multiple VPCs could support the same modifications to make a larger impact. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that parking is also an issue with ADUs. 
 
MOTION 
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Committee 
Member Rick Nowell seconded the motion for denial.

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 11, 2023 
Page 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Committee Member Jason Israel made a substitute motion to recommend approval 
with the following modifications: 
• That 1 parking space be required for an ADU. 
• That there be a 90-day minimum term for rentals of ADUs. 
There was no second; therefore, the motion failed. 
 
Hearing no further motions or discussion from the committee, Chair Bowser called for 
a vote on the motion. 
 
VOTE 
5-4, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y passed; Committee Members Barto, 
Israel, Nowell, Reynolds, and Lagrave in favor; Committee Members Kirkilas, Powell, 
Santoro, and Bowser opposed. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request  
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
3-2 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Adrian Zambrano, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing 
current terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr. 
Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, including 
allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for duplex 
and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for most 
districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections 
further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard, and fixing references to 
guesthouses and other sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zambrano then 
discussed different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached 
ADUs, attached ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano 
noted that ADUs would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope, 
outside of the required setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height 
within the required rear yard, unless a use permit is obtained. Mr. Zambrano added that 
the text amendment would not prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached 
garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the proposed development standards for ADUs and 
concluded with the timeline for the text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff 
recommends approval as listed in the staff report. 
 
Questions from the Committee: 
Chair Lawrence asked about the use permit requirement for building heights taller than 
15 feet in the rear yard and asked if a two-story casita could be built in the rear yard. 
Mr. Zambrano responded that the current provisions in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance 
only allow guesthouses in large-lot zoning districts and that he is unsure what the 
maximum height allowance is for guesthouses with the current provisions. Mr. 
Zambrano added that most single-family homes are allowed a maximum building height 
of two stories and 30 feet within the building envelope. Chair Lawrence asked if ADUs 
would be reviewed through the regular building permit review process. Mr. Zambrano 
responded affirmatively.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Virgil asked how large an ADU would be allowed to be for a lot size of 12,000 
square feet. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be 10 percent of the net lot area, if 
it is less than 3,000 square feet. Mr. Virgil stated that an acre lot would likely be able to 
build a 3,000 square-foot ADU. Mr. Zambrano responded that there would also be the 
provision that the ADU cannot be larger than 75 percent of the size of the primary 
dwelling unit. 
 
Massimo Sommacampagna asked for clarification that a second home could not be 
built. Mr. Zambrano responded that one of the provisions in the text amendment is that 
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU has to be owner-occupied as a measure to 
help with limiting selling them individually or renting ADUs as short-term rentals. Mr. 
Zambrano stated that a covenant agreement has to be signed and recorded that will run 
with the land. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if the City would enforce this provision. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that the applicant would need to provide the City with a recorded 
covenant agreement prior to permits being issued. 
 
Mr. Virgil asked if rooms could be rented individually in an ADU. Mr. Zambrano 
responded that he believes they could be, and that the City does not control how it is 
rented. 
 
Chair Lawrence stated that it would be a homeowners’ association (HOA) issue and 
that this text amendment stems from people applying for building permits for accessory 
structures and calling them an office or pool house and illegally putting in kitchens and 
bathrooms in them afterwards. Chair Lawrence shared concerns with short-term rentals 
and stated that it would become an HOA challenge. Chair Lawrence added that it would 
be a great idea for individuals wishing to house their family members in the ADU. Chair 
Lawrence stated that the requirement for a separate pathway to the street outside of the 
primary dwelling unit does set it up nicely for a short-term rental and that HOAs would 
have a challenging time managing them.  
 
Mr. Scharboneau asked about an ADU related to a garage. Mr. Zambrano responded 
that one of the types of ADUs is an above-garage apartment. Mr. Scharboneau asked 
what an ADU must include to be considered an ADU. Mr. Zambrano responded that 
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as specifically having cooking 
facilities, so if the structure has cooking facilities, it would be considered an ADU. Mr. 
Scharboneau asked if an ADU would need to have cooking facilities in it. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that in order for it to be considered a dwelling unit, it would need 
to have cooking facilities. Mr. Scharboneau asked if other Village Planning Committees 
have heard this item and what their recommendations were. 
 
Sarah Stockham, staff, responded that it was heard by the Encanto Village Planning 
Committee (VPC), Laveen VPC and Central City VPC the prior night and that they all 
recommended approval, and one recommended approval with direction. Mr. Virgil 
asked what their main concern was. Ms. Stockham responded that she was at Central 
City VPC, who wanted to provide direction for the enforcement of short-term rentals. 
Ms. Stockham stated that the City is tied by State law to regulate short-term rentals. Ms.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Stockham added that Central City VPC wanted to ensure there was enough staff to 
permit ADUs. 
 
Chair Lawrence asked if ADUs would require architectural drawings or if sketches 
would be accepted. Ms. Stockham responded that applicants would still be required to 
go through the plan review process, and if located within an Historic Preservation (HP) 
zoning district, would still be required to comply with HP district standards and go 
through the HP review process. 
 
Mr. Virgil asked if the same would apply for HOAs. Ms. Stockham responded that 
HOA requirements would be on top of what the City requirements are, but that the City 
would not enforce the HOA requirements. Mr. Virgil asked about the HP concerns 
within the Encanto Village. Ms. Stockham responded that the Encanto VPC heard it the 
prior night and had concerns with HP oversight. Ms. Stockham stated that HP 
provisions are not seen in the text amendment because they are not being changed and 
they are found in Chapter 8 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stockham stated that 
anytime a site planner sees the zoning of a property and sees that it is zoned HP, they 
immediately send them to the HP office to get HP approval first. Mr. Virgil asked for 
clarification that the Committee’s vote on the text amendment would not modify the HP 
requirements. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively, stating that the properties with 
HP zoning would still be zoned HP and would be subject to Chapter 8 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance. 
 
Mr. Sommacampagna asked if the requirement for a covenant agreement would be a 
violation of Proposition 207 for takings. Mr. Zambrano responded that when someone 
applies for an ADU, as part of the approval before permits are issued, the applicant will 
need to provide a recorded covenant agreement to show that one of the units will be 
owner-occupied, which is a measure the City proposed to help reduce the potential for 
using ADUs as short-term rentals.  
 
Ms. Stockham added that the text language has been vetted by the Law Department. 
Ms. Stockham stated that the language comes from the City of Flagstaff who also tried 
to come up with ways to regulate short-term rentals under State law. Ms. Stockham 
stated that the City of Flagstaff has not been challenged legally on that requirement yet.  
 
Mr. Sommacampagna asked if it would be a violation of Proposition 207 in the event 
the property owner indicates that rentals are exceeding the value of homeownership. 
Ms. Stockham responded that it would not be since the property would be getting an 
additional entitlement to build an ADU. 
 
Mr. Scharboneau asked for clarification that property owners are not required to sign 
the covenant agreement unless they wish to use the additional zoning entitlement to 
build an ADU. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively.  
 
Mr. Zambrano added that ADUs, such as casitas or guesthouses, are not currently 
allowed in smaller-lot zoning districts.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Will Holton asked for clarity that the ADU would have to have a separate entrance 
outside of the primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Holton 
asked if an attached ADU would have a sealed off wall to separate it from the primary 
dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded that they generally would be separated, but 
there is not a specific requirement for it to be sealed off from the other dwelling unit, and 
that there is only the requirement to have a separate entrance outside of the primary 
dwelling unit. Mr. Holton asked for clarification if there could be a doorway that goes 
into the other dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded that if the property owner wanted 
to, they could have a door that connects to the other dwelling unit. Mr. Holton asked if 
an ADU would require a separate water meter. Mr. Zambrano responded that he 
believes the ADU would be required to use the same meter. 
 
Mr. Sommacampagna asked if fire is part of the typical permit review process. Mr. 
Zambrano responded affirmatively.   
 
Chair Lawrence stated that it would be another challenge if the ADU addition results in 
requiring fire sprinklers. Ms. Stockham responded that it would depend on how large 
the ADU is. Ms. Stockham stated that she has a guesthouse that is about 200 square 
feet which did not require a full permit review that larger structures would be required to 
go through. Chair Lawrence stated that the best the Committee could do is hope that 
the permit reviewers would require the right requirements. Chair Lawrence added that 
allowing ADUs would allow them to be properly inspected since people are building 
them illegally anyways without proper inspections. 
 
Mr. Holton asked if an ADU could be in a basement as well. Mr. Zambrano responded 
affirmatively, confirming that a basement apartment is one of the types of ADUs, if the 
property owner wants to pay the cost to dig a basement. Mr. Holton asked if another 
type of ADU allowed would be an above-garage apartment. Mr. Zambrano responded 
affirmatively. Mr. Holton asked if the maximum height allowed for the above-garage 
apartment would be 15 feet. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is located within the 
building envelope, it would be permitted to be as tall as the primary dwelling unit is 
allowed to be, which is two stories and 30 feet. Mr. Zambrano stated that the 15-foot 
height limitation is when the ADU is located within the rear yard. 
 
Public Comments: 
None. 
 
Staff Response: 
None. 
 
MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
Mr. Sommacampagna motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff 
recommendation. Mr. Scharboneau seconded the motion.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 5 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
3-2; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation 
passes with Committee members Scharboneau, Sommacampagna, and Lawrence in 
favor and Committee members Holton and Virgil opposed. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
REVISED 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
9-2 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed 
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Lee Coleman asked how height will be measured. Mr. Rogers 
stated that height is measure to the top of the roof ridge. 
 
Committee Member Darlene Jackson asked if a permit will be required to build an 
ADU. Mr. Rogers stated that a permit will be required.  
 
Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez stated that she is concerned with the design 
of the ADU not being consistent with the primary dwelling. Mr. Rogers stated that ADUs 
are subject to Single-Family design review. Tricia Gomes, staff, added that in the 
Single-Family design guidelines ADUs are required to have the same materials, look, 
and feel of the primary structure.  
 
Committee Member Coleman asked if the text amendment was permitting only 
detached units. Mr. Rogers stated that the text amendment would permit both attached 
and detached ADUs. Committee Member Coleman asked if attached ADUs can 
encroach into the rear yard setback if they are less than 15-feet in height. Ms. Gomes 
confirmed that attached ADUs can encroach into the rear yard setback if they are 
limited to 15-feet in height or if a Use Permit is pursued to allow a greater height. 
Committee Member Coleman asked what the definition of attached is. Ms. Gomes 
stated that structures are attached if they share a wall. Chair Daniels asked what the 
max height would be for a single level home that is converted into a duplex. Ms. Gomes

clarified that an ADU is not allowed on a property with a duplex and explained that any 
portion of an ADU that encroaches into the rear yard setback will be limited to 15-feet in 
height.   
 
Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III stated concerns about adding more drivers to 
neighborhoods but not any parking and asked what that would look like in 
neighborhoods. Ms. Gomes stated that, while no additional parking is required in the 
text amendment, every single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of two 
parking spaces and may potentially extend the driveway area. Chair Tamala Daniels 
stated that most households have two cars and adding a household will add two 
additional cars and asked how the Planning Department is considering the impact on 
neighborhoods and safety. Chair Daniels stated she is concerned that if a dust-proof 
surface for parking is added it will not have a curb cut and cause safety issues. Ms. 
Gomes explained that any additional parking spaces will be required to comply with 
driveway standards. Chair Daniels stated that parking should be required to permit an 
ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that parking can be included as a part of an ADU permit but is 
not required and explained that when drafting the ADU ordinance staff followed several 
directives, firstly to add more units to the City per the Housing Phoenix Plan, and 
secondly, to make ADUs feasible. Ms. Gomes explained that in many communities 
adding parking may not be an option, so many communities may be prohibited to build 
an ADU if parking is required. Vice Chair Greathouse stated that perhaps a lot width 
requirement should be added to the ordinance. Ms. Gomes stated that any additional 
requirements will restrict where ADUs can be built and stated ADUs are currently 
allowed in new subdivisions within South Mountain but have not been built at scale. 
Chair Daniels explained that Lennar Homes has built many single-family residences 
with ADUs, but they have built when the primary dwelling has been built and include 
parking. Ms. Gomes stated the parking will be available in the driveway if the garage is 
utilized or tenants can utilize street parking. Chair Daniels asked about HOAs with 
private streets. Ms. Gomes stated that residents within an HOA must comply with the 
neighborhood’s CC&Rs and street parking may be restricted.  
 
Committee Member Alvarez stated that she expects ADUs will be built more in 
communities with public streets than in communities with private streets that are 
regulated by an HOA and asked if HOA communities were asking for ADUs as an 
option. Ms. Gomes stated that ADUs are currently allowed in larger lot zoning districts 
and in smaller lot zoning districts ADUs are often built either illegally or without a full 
kitchen, so they are not considered a full unit.  
 
Committee Member Coleman asked why not only allow ADUs in the larger lot zoning 
districts, asked if this ordinance is eliminating single-family zoning, stated that 
“attached” needs to be defined, and asked about sewer connections and development 
fees. Ms. Gomes stated that “attached” means there is a shared wall and explained that 
subdivisions are built with the utility and street capacity to serve additional structures on 
a single-family lot. Chair Daniels asked if utility connection fees would be assessed on 
the ADUs. Ms. Gomes confirmed that the ADUs would go through a full site and building 
review and be assessed utility connection fees.

Committee Member Viera stated that ADUs will have to go through the permitting 
process but lots wont need to go through a rezone to have two units. Ms. Gomes stated 
that ADUs are accessory structures to the single-family home and are two full units wont 
be allowed.  
 
Committee Member Coleman asked if ADUs would be charged water and sewer 
development fees. Ms. Gomes confirmed that water and sewer fees will be charged on 
ADUs.  
 
Committee Member Kay Shepard asked if there is a minimum lot size to allow and 
ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that base zoning districts have minimum lot sizes, there is a 
maximum lot coverage, and are limited to 75% the size of the primary structure.  
 
Chair Daniels asked if there is a minimum distance requirement between the primary 
structure and the ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that if a building is less than five feet from 
another building fire-rated walls will be required.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
Elias Valencia stated that he grew up as a low-income minority and dealt with issues of 
red-lining and saw the struggle of his single mother raising three kids by herself. Mr. 
Valencia explained that he sees ADUs not as something that will eliminate requirements 
or destroy neighborhoods, but rather the next step in the incremental development by 
allowing neighborhoods to retain their character rather than upzoning. Mr. Valencia 
added that ADUs are typically placed behind the primary dwelling so the visual impact 
of the ADU should be minimal and explained that lots are generally 60-feet wide, so 
street parking should be available if the garage, driveway, and any additional parking 
area is already being used. Mr. Valencia explained that ADUs provide an additional 
housing option for communities and HOAs can regulate ADUs if they are not desired.  
 
Vice Chair Greathouse thanked Mr. Valencia for his statements, stated that ADUs will 
be expensive to build, and asked if ADUs are likely to be built by homeowners or 
investors. Chair Daniels stated that homeowners are likely to build ADUs and 
explained that the Lennar Next Gen product, that includes an ADU, are very popular. 
Chair Daniels added that when most investors buy a property they are the single owner, 
so they can do whatever they want with their property. Vice Chair Greathouse stated 
that he would like to know what neighborhoods would be most impacted by the ADU 
text amendment if investors come in and buy up single-family rental properties to but 
two or three units on the lot. Chair Daniels stated that investors have been gentrifying 
communities for a long time. Ms. Gomes stated that to have an ADU a restrictive 
covenant is required that mandates that the property owner will need to live in either the 
primary or accessory unit and explained that three units would only be allowed in 
multifamily zoning district. Vice Chair Greathouse asked how many rooms are allowed 
in an ADU. Ms. Gomes explained that number of rooms is limited by the allowed size of 
the ADU, so ADUs will likely be one or two rooms.

Committee Member Coleman asked if parking will be required for the primary dwelling 
if a garage is converted to an ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that parking will still be required 
for the primary dwelling, or a variance will be required.  
 
Melissa Gallegos explained that she lives in an older neighborhood where many 
spaces have already been converted to handle the influx of people coming into the 
neighborhood and asked where the capacity of these homes is. Ms. Gallegos explained 
her household has four cars and her neighbor has more and stated that the fire 
department could not reach her neighbor due to narrow streets and an abundance of 
cars parked on the street. Ms. Gomes explained that the ordinance cannot 
accommodate for every family type as some families are larger and some are smaller 
and stated that typical streets are 50-feet wide that can accommodate emergency 
services. Ms. Gallegos stated that she has several neighbors that have 10 to 12 people 
living in their homes and adding more bedrooms that will be filled with up to eight more 
people will create unacceptable living conditions and stated that it will be too expensive 
for a typical family to spend $100,000 on building an ADU, but not too expensive for 
investors. Ms. Gomes stated that owners will be required to live on the property, so 
investors will be limited to building an ADU on the lot where they reside. Committee 
Member Alvarez stated that allowing ADUs may provide relief for multigenerational 
households with 10 people by allowing some of the residents to move into the ADU. Ms. 
Gallegos stated that she is supportive of multigeneration housing but in California ADUs 
have been rented out, not occupied by family. Chair Daniels stated that 
multigenerational living is common in many cultures and echoed Ms. Gallegos concerns 
that street parking is already at capacity without adding any additional units. Committee 
Member Jackson stated that ADUs are a good idea but would love to see someone 
from the City go out when people complain about issues at public forums such as the 
Village Planning Committee. Committee Member Coleman added that an abundance 
of street parking makes it dangerous for kids to play in the street. Committee Member 
Muriel Smith explained that she had to work with her neighbor to settle parking issues 
that arose when they threw a block party and encouraged people to call the City to find 
out how issues can be settled. Committee Member Alvarez asked what department 
should be contacted to settle access and parking issues. Committee Member Smith 
stated that the Street Transportation Department handles parking and access issues.  
 
Michael Neal asked if the ADU ordinance will be applicable to all zoning districts within 
the City of Phoenix, asked if they would be allowed in Planned Unit Developments 
(PUDs), and asked if the Sanitation, Water, Fire, and Police Departments had reviewed 
the ADU proposal.  
 
Ms. Gomes confirmed that ADUs will be allowed in all zoning districts on lots with a 
single-family residence, stated that ADUs would have to allowed in the PUD narrative to 
be permitted, and explained that the proposal had been reviewed by an interdisciplinary 
team that included traffic, civil, and other reviewers, as well as Neighborhood Services. 
Mr. Neal stated that adding another unit would require larger water meters at the street, 
would require sanitation to change the way that they do pickups because properties will

have double the trash, stated street parking is already at capacity, and asked how close 
to property line an ADU will be allowed to be. Ms. Gomes stated that an accessory 
structure can be three feet from the property line.  Mr. Neal asked if a property with 4 
bedrooms could potentially add a three-bedroom ADU and asked how addresses will 
function. Ms. Gomes stated that if the lot coverage and size calculations allowed for a 
three-bedroom ADU it would be allowed and explained that an ADU will be allowed to 
have a different address than the primary dwelling.  
 
Cory Kincaid stated that allowing ADUs had been a discussion since he moved to 
Phoenix 15 years ago, explained that housing had gotten harder and harder to build, 
thus making housing less affordable, and stated that Phoenix is 100,000 housing units 
short. Mr. Kincaid stated that there may be issues that are created by the ADUs, but 
cars do not need heat relief stations, eviction relief, and rent relief in the way that people 
do and stated that his area has seen a 40% rise in rents. Mr. Kincaid stated that 
communities in Phoenix used to be able to build ADUs and stated this is a small but 
meaningful step to address the housing crisis.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
Committee Member Jackson stated that with typical home prices around $350,000 
she is happy to hear that a three-bedroom ADU could be built for around $100,000 and 
can allow a lower income household to attain housing and stated she is in support of the 
proposal.  
 
Chair Daniels stated that the Arizona Senate rejected the bill that would have legalized 
ADUs statewide. 
 
MOTION 
Committee Member Shepard made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y 
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Jackson seconded the motion.  
 
VOTE 
9-2, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation 
passed with Committee Members Alvarez, F. Daniels, Hare, Jackson, Roque, Shepard, 
Smith, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and Committee Members Coleman and T. 
Daniels opposed.  
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y  
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 12, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
None 
VPC Vote 
No quorum. 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No quorum. 
 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
 
No quorum.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 13, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
6-3 
 
 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. 
 
One member of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment for the accessory dwelling 
units. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
 
Vice Chair Kenney said this would help with the housing shortage and is an interesting 
way to address this shortage. 
 
Ricardo Romero asked if the item passes what the timeline would be to make it official 
and also asked how the communication has been passed down to the Homeowner’s 
Associations. 
 
Mr. Moric responded the text amendment goes in front of City Council in September an 
indicated that if a Homeowner’s Association requires going through them for review, the 
City process is separate. 
 
Gregory Freeman said ADU’s often in other parts of the country get used for short term 
rentals. 
 
Matteo Moric explained that the proposal requires a restrictive covenant which would 
stick with the land and only one of the units on the property could be rented.

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Al Field asked about utility easements in the rear and why nothing was said about 
them. Mr. Field felt these needed to be addressed and did not like the idea of doing this 
for all zones in the City. Mr. Field noted that the Desert View VPC recommended denial. 
 
Mr. Moric responded that site planning would review the plans to ensure there is an 
authorization from the different utility companies if they want to place a structure in the 
easement. 
 
Trilese DiLeo stated the accessory unit cannot be larger than 75% of the primary 
dwelling unit. 
 
Mr. Moric said for a lot less than 10,000 square feet an accessory dwelling unit 
potentially could be up to 1,000 square feet in size. Mr. Moric explained that anywhere 
within the required rear yard you can go as close as 3 feet, however, when there’s a 
fully dedicated alley it can go to within 0 feet of the rear property line. 
 
Trilese DiLeo asked what the requirement would be if it is a narrow lot, noting that 
homes currently being built have small lots. 
 
Mr. Moric replied you’d still have to comply with lot coverage of how much roof is 
allowed on the lot. 
 
Sandra Hoffman shared there was no definition of primary residence in the text 
amendment and thought it might be good to include principal residence. Ms. Hoffman 
added that with building code they’d need to meet separation distances between the 
buildings. 
 
Gregory Freeman responded that the staff indicated that the owner would need to live 
in one of the units and it would not have to be the bigger one. 
 
Al Field said measurements to property line had no consideration to the block wall. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Sandy Grunow stated that the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix supports the 
accessory units as they can have positive aspects during the housing shortage. Ms. 
Grunow noted there were concerns related to ADU parking to ensure property owners 
are not being inconvenienced and she felt on street parking should be regulated, and 
that staff should look at short term rentals language in Flagstaff’s Ordinance. Ms. 
Grunow felt that HOA and CC&R’s did not address the coordination with municipal 
codes and ordinances and asked the Committee to carefully consider the revised 
language in their statement they had provided and felt this text amendment needed 
more discussion with stakeholders. 
 
Jackie Rich opposed the text amendment and was the President of a Neighborhood 
Association and member of Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Ms. Rich asked

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
what takes precedent the zoning overlays or the ADU measures. Ms. Rich added that 
the ADU text amendment would allow larger driveways, lot coverage and she added that 
there are 30 different overlay zones and regulatory plans. Ms. Rich said the 
enforcement of short-term rentals with the restrictive covenants was unclear. Ms. Rich 
asked the Committee to seriously consider the letter. 
 
Russel Osborne said the additional dwelling units will fill in and overtime will affect all 
utilities from electricity, water use, size of the pipes, sewer lines, trash pickup, and lead 
to more on street parking. Mr. Osborne said street parking would have small clearance 
for emergency vehicles and parking would be an issue, also, there could be problems 
with naming conventions in single family districts and this could change entire character 
of the community. Mr. Osborne said the City of Phoenix’s primary enforcement would be 
difficult and not have manpower or resources to track these items. Mr. Osborne said the 
covenant would be hard to enforce. 
 
Matteo Moric, staff, explained he did not have an answer for the capacity of today’s 
infrastructure.  
 
Sarah Stockham, staff, responded that the construction is subject to the building code. 
 
Mr. Moric indicated that the restrictive covenants would ensure that at least one of the 
units would be owner occupied. Mr. Moric noted that it would be difficult to enforce but 
the covenant would be recorded and stick with the land in perpetuity.  
 
Mr. Moric said the minutes would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City 
Council. 
 
Al Field felt there were a lot of questions that still needed to be answered. 
 
Vice Chair Kenney indicated that this would be reflected in their vote. 
 
Sandra Hoffman indicated that there is a State statute which supersedes cities from 
stopping Airbnb’s. 
 
Mr. Moric said State law still supersedes cities for short term rentals. 
 
Gregory Freeman said this is a step of adding density and as a solution for affordable 
housing, it’s not perfect but he had not seen a better solution. 
 
Trilese DiLeo agreed with Mr. Freeman and believed it was important to get more multi-
generational housing which would provide alternative housing options. Ms. DiLeo 
shared ADU’s would be nice to have as an option but would like to see that no more 
than 10% of the lot size shall be used for these ADU’s. 
 
Sandra Hoffman said that the cost of homes were so high that children could not afford 
homes anymore and they need a more livable situation. Ms. Hoffman added that there

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
are places like in downtown where there is limited parking for residents and they control 
parking in the street. Ms. Hoffman thinks this text amendment is needed at this time and 
it would help with the affordable housing issue. 
 
MOTION: 
James Sutphen motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Al Field seconded the 
motion. 
 
VOTE: 
3 - 6, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y failed with Committee Members 
Field, Sutphen, Virgil in support. Committee Members DiLeo, Freeman, Herber, 
Hoffman, Romero and Vice Chair Kenney opposed. 
 
MOTION: 
Gregory Freeman motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Sandra Hoffman 
seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE: 
6 - 3, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation 
passed with Committee Members DiLeo, Freeman, Herber, Hoffman, Romero and 
Kenney in favor. Committee Members Field, Sutphen and Virgil opposed. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 13, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
4-2 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: 
 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support with 
modifications. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Adrian Zambrano, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing 
current terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr. 
Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, including 
allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for duplex 
and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for most 
districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections 
further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard unless a use permit is 
obtained, and fixing references to guesthouses among other sections. Mr. Zambrano 
then discussed different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached 
ADUs, attached ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano 
noted that ADUs would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope, 
outside of the required setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height 
within the required rear yard, unless a use permit is obtained. Mr. Zambrano added that 
the text amendment would not prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached 
garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the proposed development standards for ADUs and 
concluded with the timeline for the text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff 
recommends approval as listed in the staff report. 
 
Questions from Committee: 
None. 
 
Public Comments:  
Neal Haddad, member with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP), 
introduced himself and stated that a number of members of the NCGP working group 
met and created a position statement on this text amendment, which was sent to the 
Committee. Mr. Haddad stated it is important to support ADUs and that they can have a

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
positive impact on housing supply; however, there are several elements of the text 
amendment that they believe requires some modifications and greater clarity to avoid 
unintended negative consequences. Mr. Haddad stated that they first cover historic 
preservation (HP), special planning districts (SPDs) and overlay districts in their letter. 
Mr. Haddad stated that they believe clearer language is needed regarding the existing 
regulations governing properties in an HP district, SPD, and overlay districts that would 
be applicable to ADUs. Mr. Haddad stated that on-street parking should be regulated. 
Mr. Haddad continued that short-term rentals are a problem in many parts of the City 
and shared that they do not believe requiring a restrictive covenant indicating one of the 
units will be owner-occupied is good enough to ensure that ADUs contribute to the 
housing supply rather than be used as short-term rentals. Mr. Haddad noted that the 
City of Flagstaff has language regulating short-term rentals for ADUs that could be a 
template for Phoenix, which has been included in the letter. Mr. Haddad added that the 
proposed amendment language does not address coordination with homeowners’ 
associations (HOAs), or covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), and 
recommended that language be added that states applicants for ADUs must comply 
with CC&Rs in addition to the provisions in the proposed amendment language. Mr. 
Haddad stated that they believe this needs to be clarified to avoid loopholes and stated 
that they recommend the Committee approve the text amendment with modifications as 
listed in their letter. Mr. Haddad concluded that NCGP consists of neighborhood 
organizations all over the City and they continue to advocate for earlier involvement in 
the development of City-wide text amendments so these types of details could be 
implemented before coming to the Village Planning Committees (VPCs). 
 
Jack Leonard, member with NCGP, architect, and former member of the Camelback 
East VPC and Encanto VPC, introduced himself as a member in support of this text 
amendment. Mr. Leonard stated that he does not believe it will have the impact on the 
housing supply that they think it will have because short-term rentals cannot be 
regulated very much and are having a bigger impact on the housing crisis. Mr. Leonard 
stated that he has seen hotels purchase homes in neighborhoods to convert them to 
short-term rentals. Mr. Leonard added that it would be great if there could be better 
regulations regarding short-term rentals, but it may be another fight for the State. Mr. 
Leonard added that he believes that the impact ADUs will have on parking in 
neighborhoods should be looked at more closely, noting that ADUs will make on-street 
parking worse. 
 
Amanda McGowan stated that their HOA CC&Rs had originally allowed casitas and 
then they were removed from the CC&Rs after there was a lot of fighting over them. Ms. 
McGowan concurred with Mr. Haddad’s comments that the proposed amendment 
language should address compliance with CC&Rs as well. 
 
Staff Response to Public Comment and Discussion: 
Christopher DePerro, staff, introduced himself and stated that he has worked for the 
Planning and Development Department since 1998. Mr. DePerro stated that HOA 
regulations are a function of State Statute and that cities do not regulate HOAs. Mr. 
DePerro stated that HOAs can prohibit casitas but could not override City restrictions. 
Mr. DePerro added that whenever a provision is added into the Zoning Ordinance,

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
typically variances can be applied for to vary from that provision, and a variance cannot 
be obtained for compliance with HOA CC&Rs since it is not a function of City regulation. 
Mr. DePerro stated that adding a provision in the text amendment for compliance with 
HOA CC&Rs would be redundant and is inadvisable by law.  
 
Chair Julie Read asked Mr. DePerro to explain the process for a text amendment and 
how citizens are included in the process. Mr. DePerro responded that there is a 
difference between a text amendment for a small geographic area versus a City-wide 
text amendment. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendments on this night’s agenda 
were per the direction from City Council members based on meetings they have had 
with different stakeholders, and that the City Council directed the Planning and 
Development Director to have the Planning Commission initiate four text amendments 
related to the housing crisis. Mr. DePerro added that the Housing Phoenix Plan had 
talked about trying ADUs in certain neighborhoods of the City, and the City Council 
requested that staff try to go further than that. Mr. DePerro explained the history of the 
VPCs, noting that they were established in 1985 specifically for community outreach 
since Phoenix was becoming so large, and that each VPC can have up to 21 members 
that are hopefully selected for a diverse representation of each village. Mr. DePerro 
added that the City always struggles with fairness when conducting community 
outreach, noting that the notices for each VPC went out at the exact same time, and 
that the VPCs are the best and most fair way of doing community outreach for City-wide 
text amendments. Mr. DePerro stated that more complicated text amendments would 
typically come to the VPCs first as information only agenda items to give a heads up to 
VPC members regarding text amendments that are coming for a vote soon. Mr. 
DePerro added that beyond the VPC recommendations, staff would compile all the 
comments and provide them to the Director and City Manager to review and to 
determine if any changes to the proposed amendment language should be made before 
presenting it to the Planning Commission. Chair Read stated that a majority of their 
community’s on-street parking is regulated by HOAs and asked about parking related to 
ADUs. Mr. DePerro responded that they have looked at what other cities have done, 
noting provisions for ADUs from the City of Tempe and the City of Flagstaff, in addition 
to the City of Tucson, which is the closest largest city that has provisions for ADUs. Mr. 
DePerro stated that Tucson has stricter requirements, including reviewing ADUs as 
multifamily, but they found that the main item that would prevent people from 
constructing an ADU would be a requirement to provide an additional parking spot. Mr. 
DePerro stated that the text amendment does change the percentage allowed of a 
driveway within the front yard. Mr. DePerro noted that Phoenix has certain regulations 
that make the requirement of a parking space for an ADU difficult, including that all 
required parking spaces must be located behind the front yard setback. Mr. DePerro 
noted that detached single-family homes are required to have two parking spaces, 
which would be located in the garage behind the front yard setback, and there would be 
two unofficial parking spaces on the driveway that could be viewed as guest parking. 
Mr. DePerro stated that requiring an additional parking space that would be allowed in 
the existing driveway would have the same result if an additional parking space was not 
required for an ADU.

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Shannon Simon asked about short-term rentals. Mr. DePerro responded that the City 
is doing a separate City Code text amendment related to the updated State laws 
indicating what cities can regulate regarding short-term rentals. Mr. DePerro added that 
staff tried to write a similar provision to what the City of Flagstaff has done, limited under 
State law, to regulate short-term rentals in terms of ADUs. Mr. DePerro explained that 
the provision requires a restrictive covenant be recorded that says the property owner 
will occupy either the main home or the ADU, or that the entire property will be sold or 
leased as a whole, and not individually. Mr. DePerro noted that the City of Flagstaff had 
a different policy direction, which Phoenix Law Department advises against, that states 
that both units could be leased separately if the lease term is for 30 days or longer. 
 
Chair Read asked for clarification if the restrictive covenant provision is in the current 
proposed amendment language. Mr. DePerro responded that it is included in the 
language and clarified that what is not in the current amendment language is the 
minimum 30-day rental term provision. Mr. DePerro added that the City of Flagstaff’s 
rental term provision is an option and does not require the term rentals to be more than 
30 days, except if the property owner wishes to rent both units separately.  
 
Jennifer Krieger asked if the property owner of a short-term rental has to inform the 
City of the property being used as a short-term rental. Mr. DePerro responded that it is 
a requirement. Ms. Krieger asked if the property owner has to pay more taxes for a 
short-term rental. Mr. DePerro responded that there is a cost for the permit, but he is 
unsure if Maricopa County Assessor would then consider the valuation differently. Mr. 
DePerro added that he had answered a question from a previous committee that adding 
square footage to a property would increase taxes. Ms. Krieger stated that there has to 
be some type of control relating to if properties are being used as an income, such as 
for short-term rentals. 
 
Vice Chair Michelle Ricart stated she has been a realtor since 1996 and sold two 
homes near 24th Street and Thomas Road that had guesthouses and asked what the 
text amendment is changing. Mr. DePerro responded that there are certain areas in the 
City in certain zoning districts where guesthouses are permitted, usually being districts 
with larger lots. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment would expand the 
allowance for guesthouses, or ADUS, to smaller-lot districts, and would allow it by 
allowing more lot coverage. Mr. DePerro added that accessory structures are currently 
allowed in the same way as the text amendment proposes for ADUs, except that 
accessory structures currently are not allowed to be used for sleeping or living. Mr. 
DePerro stated that the text amendment would update the terminology to the accepted 
terminology nowadays, which is ADUs, would expand ADUs to be allowed in most 
districts, would expand the lot coverage to actually make it possible in most districts, 
and would allow existing accessory structures to be used as an ADU. Mr. DePerro 
added that Site Planning permits these types of structures every day, and that the plans 
just cannot label it as an ADU, and it cannot label rooms as bedrooms or kitchens. Vice 
Chair Ricart stated that in the North Gateway Village, there are a lot of newer homes 
where builders have built the casita as part of the new home construction, termed as 
“NextGen” units. Mr. DePerro responded that those are interior suites with cooking

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 5 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
facilities, which was permitted around 2017 and will be removed with this text 
amendment because the proposed amendment language is more lenient.  
 
Ms. Krieger suggested that if ADUs are being built for financial gain, there needs to be 
restrictions or additional taxes assessed to those properties. 
 
Jeff Johnson stated that ADUs will likely be used mostly as short-term rentals. 
 
Mr. DePerro stated that there is a version of language he has seen that states that if at 
any point a property requires a transaction privilege tax license, it would require a 
parking spot, which would then make it more difficult to build an ADU to be used as a 
short-term rental. Mr. DePerro stated that if a motion was made to approve the text 
amendment with that direction, staff could further investigate that language.  
 
Chair Read asked if the amendment language could include language that the ADU 
would have to have a designated parking spot, whether it be on the existing driveway or 
on a new parking surface. Mr. DePerro reiterated that unless the language was written 
specifically to say that a required parking space for an ADU may be located within the 
front yard, the default would be for it to not be located within the front yard, which is why 
staff did not recommend requiring a parking space, since it would be difficult for many 
lots to provide a parking space behind the front yard setback. Mr. DePerro added that in 
terms of short-term rentals, they could potentially be restricted more by requiring a 
parking space, which would be triggered by the transaction privilege tax license.  
 
Ms. Krieger agreed that it would help control the short-term rental aspect of ADUs. 
 
Mr. Leonard stated that there is no connection between the transaction privilege tax 
licensing and zoning, so there is no oversight. Mr. Leonard asked for clarification if four 
parking spaces would be required for a lot with an ADU since there would be two 
dwelling units and single-family homes require two parking spaces per unit. Mr. 
DePerro responded that the amendment language is currently written to not require an 
additional parking space for an ADU. Mr. Leonard stated that the residents living in an 
ADU would be driving and asked where they would park. Mr. DePerro responded that 
depending on how an ADU is being used, some residents living in an ADU may not 
have a car. 
 
Ms. Krieger stated that they would assume that there would be more than one car per 
ADU and recommended that if an ADU is being used for financial gain, that two parking 
spaces be required. Mr. DePerro responded that he has not seen another city require 
more than one parking space for an ADU. Ms. Krieger stated that at least one parking 
space should be required if an ADU is being used for financial gain. 
 
Mr. Leonard stated that Tucson allows parking off of alleys, which makes Tucson 
different than Phoenix. Mr. Leonard added that Tucson has allowed guesthouses since 
the 1970s, which contributed to inexpensive student housing in Tucson, and as soon as 
Airbnb came around, they all came off the market and were converted to short-term 
rentals. Mr. DePerro responded that Phoenix always has allowed parking off of alleys

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 6 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
for single-family homes, including accessing the rear yard from the alley and 
maneuvering in the alley by right. Mr. DePerro added that parking off of alleys is not 
allowed for multifamily by right, and that the North Gateway Village likely does not have 
a lot of alleys.  
 
MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
Vice Chair Ricart motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff 
recommendation. 
 
Mr. Johnson motioned a substitute motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per 
the staff recommendation, with a modification to require two parking spaces per ADU. 
Ms. Krieger seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
3-3; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff recommendation, with 
a modification, fails with Committee members French, Johnson and Krieger in favor and 
Committee members Simon, Ricart and Read opposed. 
 
MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
Vice Chair Ricart motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff 
recommendation. Ms. Simon seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y: 
4-2; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff recommendation, 
passes with Committee members French, Simon, Ricart and Read in favor and 
Committee members Johnson and Krieger opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
REVISED 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
 
July 18, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval with additional stipulations 
VPC Vote 
7-2  
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Staff Presentation: 
 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed 
standards for new ADUs, provided a timeline for the proposal, and presented the staff 
recommendation to approve. 
 
Questions from the Committee: 
 
None.  
 
Public Comment: 
 
Neal Haddad stated that he was part of the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
and that the coalition supports ADUs. Mr. Haddad stated that modifications to the text 
amendment are required. Mr. Haddad noted that the coalition has suggested language for 
houses and ADUs in historic preservation areas, special planning districts and overlays. 
Mr. Haddad added that the letter also focuses on parking, short-term rentals, and HOAs.  
 
Chair Lisa Perez asked why the language regarding HOAs can not be added to the text 
amendment. Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director for the Planning and Development 
Department, stated that there is a private agreement between the HOA and individuals 
who live within HOAs. Ms. Gomes noted that HOA provisions are not analyzed by city 
staff. Chair Perez noted that even if an HOA doesn’t specifically prohibit ADUs, there are 
other restrictions that prevent the construction of one. Ms. Gomes noted that the current 
Zoning Ordinance doesn’t state that individuals must follow state regulations, but people 
are still required to follow state regulations. Chair Perez stated that the current

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
councilperson has been providing false information because she states that ADUs are 
allowed anywhere. Ms. Gomes stated that HOAs could implement more restrictions on 
ADUs.  
 
Leezah Sun stated that HOAs have a strong impact at a state and federal level. Ms. Sun 
stated that there is a demand for more housing in the city and state. Ms. Sun noted 
Arizona should analyze affordable housing and there are issues that need to be addressed 
in the text amendment.  
 
Jack Leonard noted that he was in support of ADUs but the text amendment would not 
solve affordable housing. Mr. Leonard noted that a lot of the existing ADUs are used for 
short-term rentals. Mr. Leonard added that he would like to clean up the language in the 
text amendment regarding parking and other items addressed in the Neighborhood 
Coalition of Greater Phoenix.  
 
Committee Discussion: 
 
Parris Wallace noted that Tucson has been successful with the addition of ADUs. Ms. 
Wallace noted that the proposed text amendment has been complied by numerous cities 
and ADUs will help alleviate the housing crisis. Ms. Wallace added that she was not 
opposed to on-street parking since that is public right-of-way. Chair Perez noted that on-
street parking has been an issue in historic districts or HOAs. Chair Perez added that the 
first reaction would be how does it affect everyone individually, but it also affects others. 
Ms. Wallace requested to read a letter from State Representative Analise Ortiz. Chair 
Perez approved and requested the letter be sent to staff. Ms. Wallace stated that State 
Representative Ortiz supported the ADU text amendment because it would help alleviate 
the housing shortage and affordability crisis. Ms. Wallace added that the letter stated that 
ADUs would help with infill development, create a more sustainable city, and help low- and 
middle-income families. Ms. Wallace noted that she will be voting in favor of the text 
amendment.  
 
Kristine Morris stated that she supported the text amendment but would like to take into 
consideration historic preservation areas and HOAs. Chair Perez stated that she would 
also like clarification. Chair Perez asked staff how they could make a motion. Ms. Gomes 
stated that other committees have recommended approval with specific direction. Chair 
Perez stated that she would like it to be a stipulation and not a direction. Ms. Gomes 
noted that if a property is located within a historic preservation area, they are required to 
go through Historic Preservation. Ms. Gomes noted that the language in the text 
amendment would ensure that Historic Preservation review each ADU, but they would not 
have to go through the design review. Ms. Gomes added that design review is primarily for 
new homes. Ms. Morris asked what if historic preservation doesn’t address ADUs. Ms. 
Gomes added that any modification, such as a garage, wall, addition, etc., to a historic 
preservation lot must be approved by Historic Preservation. Ms. Gomes added that the 
text amendment will not provide any leeway from design or combability. Ms. Morris asked 
what if there are no guidelines for ADUs in Historic Preservation. Ms. Gomes noted that 
anything constructed on the lot must be analyzed. Ms. Gomes added that any ADU in a 
historic neighborhood will be analyzed to make sure it is compatible with the current 
structure.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Perez noted she received a letter from the Phoenix Historic Neighborhood Coalition 
and stated that there were areas in the text amendment that required modifications to 
address historic preservation homes.  
 
Mr. Leonard noted that most lots in historic neighborhoods are 50 feet wide and that the 
removal of the front yard for parking would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. 
Leonard added that the text amendment did not address items found in historic 
neighborhoods such as a driveway leading to existing casitas.  
 
Dan Kcocke stated that he lived in a historic neighborhood, and he was supportive of the 
language in the text amendment. Mr. Kcocke added that anyone could park in front of his 
house because it is public right-of-way.  
 
Mr. Haddad reiterated that the coalition was supportive of the proposed text amendment 
but requested certain modifications to the language.  
 
Andre Serrette stated that he works in affordable housing and agreed that the text 
amendment could benefit from clarification language.  
 
Chair Perez stated that the majority of the committee is in agreement to the additional 
language. Chair Perez stated that she wanted the language in the letters be added as a 
stipulation not a direction. Ms. Gomes noted that other committees have made a motion to 
recommend approval with direction. Chair Perez stated that she would like the direction to 
be stipulated. Dan Rush noted that numerous additions to the motion could make it 
confusing for the committee to make a vote.  
 
Ms. Morris noted that the committee had not had a discussion regarding special overlays, 
short-term rentals, and parking associated with ADUs. Ms. Wallace noted that she was 
not opposed to short-term rentals because that was the right of the property owner. Mr. 
Haddad noted that the language in the letter required a minimum 30-day rental period. Mr. 
Haddad added that short-term rentals will eliminate affordable housing. Ms. Wallace noted 
that she was in a short-term rental of half a year and supported short-term rentals. Ms. 
Morris noted that short-term rentals have made housing unaffordable near the Arizona 
State University. Mr. Serrette noted that someone could not purchase an ADU, and it 
would be beneficial to have rental options for students. 
 
Ms. Wallace noted that she was supportive of the property owner living on the lot. Ms. 
Sun stated that the real issue seemed to be who would be benefiting from ADUs. Ms. Sun 
added that HOAs would regulations addressing ADUs. Renee Dominguez stated that she 
had concerns regarding ADU short-term rentals. Ms. Gomes stated that the text 
amendment would require the property owner to live on the same lot as an ADU. Ms. 
Gomes added that the 30-day minimum requirement was not added to the text 
amendment because single-family houses that are short-term rentals do not require the 
30-day minimum.  
 
Motion:  
Kristine Morris motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with the following 
stipulations:  
• Provide clarifying language for Historic Preservation regarding Accessory Dwelling 
Units.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
• Provide clarifying language for Homeowner Associations regarding Accessory 
Dwelling Units.  
Bill Barquin seconded the motion.  
 
 
 
Vote: 
7-2, motioned passed with Committee Members Ayala, Barquin, Dominguez, Morris, 
Sanou, Wallace, and Perez in favor and Committee Members Rush and Serrette in 
opposition. 
 
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation and Stipulations:  
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 19, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval per the staff recommendation with direction 
VPC Vote 
14-0 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Three members of the public submitted speaker cards with all wishing to speak. One 
indicated they are opposed, one in favor and opposition, and one “partially” in favor. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Mr. Klimek, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment, 
gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed standards for 
new ADUs, provided a timeline for the proposal, and presented the staff 
recommendation to approve. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Matthews asked if the text amendment addresses a scenario 
where an ADU may be constructed before the primary dwelling. Mr. Klimek responded 
that the definition of ADU will not allow one to exist without a primary dwelling. 
 
Committee Member Larson asked for clarity on who is the target market for this type 
of dwelling unit. Mr. Klimek responded that this dwelling type can be attractive to many 
user groups include multigenerational households.  
 
Committee Member Veidmark asked if this text amendment will supersede HOA 
requirements. Mr. Klimek responded that state law does not allow a municipality to 
enforce HOA covenants and therefore the text amendment does not acknowledge 
HOAs, but this does not eliminate an HOAs authority.  
 
Committee Member Perez expressed concern over the permitting costs and 
procedural complexities that may deter regular homeowners to construct ADUs. Mr. 
Klimek responded that permit costs are based on square footage and added that the 
department will likely explore measures to reduce barriers to ADU construction.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Committee Member Sommacampagna asked for clarity on how the restrictive 
covenant would work. Mr. Klimek responded that the City of Phoenix will likely ask for 
the documentation whenever a building permit is issued for an ADU. 
 
Committee Member Gore asked Klimek for the most common criticism to this 
proposal. Mr. Klimek responded that the most common criticisms are on-street 
parking, utility capacity, and additional vehicular traffic.  
 
Committee Member Veidmark asked if stipulations or modifications can be added to 
this type of request. Mr. Klimek responded that a text amendment is a type of case 
that cannot be approved by the City Council with stipulations and added that any 
modifications or stipulations added by the VPCs will likely be treated as “direction from 
the committee.” 
 
Committee Member Matthews posed a hypothetical scenario to ask if the city would 
be evaluating infrastructure capacity based on the assumption that all or a portion of 
single-family lots will have ADUs constructed. Mr. Klimek responded that ADUs do not 
count against the overall density maximum permitted in a district. He added that the 
department is not expecting that every owner on a given street will construct ADUs. If a 
builder were inclined to create a development with ADUs on every lot, they would likely 
submit their plans showing the total number of primary and accessory dwellings to 
simplify the overall review process; in this case, the applicant would be required to 
show, for example, the total projected traffic demand. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Ms. Sandy Grunow introduced herself as a representative of the Neighborhood 
Coalition of Greater Phoenix and shared some highlights from their briefing paper that 
was provided to the North Mountain Village Planning Committee. She asked the 
committee to consider their proposed stipulations regarding historic preservation, 
regulating parking, regulating short term rentals, and addressing how HOAs will be 
impacted by the proposal. She added that they are also advocates for early 
engagement for text amendments that will impact so much of the city. 
 
Ms. Jackie Rich introduced herself as a representative of the Neighborhood Coalition 
of Greater Phoenix and shared some highlights from their briefing paper that was 
provided to the North Mountain Village Planning Committee. She asked the committee 
to consider the proposed stipulations to require a minimum lease period of 30 days, to 
add language acknowledging HOA authority, and she expressed concern that this text 
amendment may impact the Special Planning Districts such as Royal Palm. 
 
Mr. Stephen Pamperin expressed that his main concern is short term rentals, and a 
lesser concern is that street parking issues may arise from this proposal.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
STAFF RESPONSE 
 
Mr. Klimek thanked the members of the public for their comments and responded with 
the following. State law does not allow a municipality to enforce HOA regulations so 
this text amendment cannot acknowledge or state that the city will enforce HOA 
requirements. Staff has evaluated the concerns regarding historic preservation and 
found that any additional acknowledgements in this section would be redundant and 
unnecessary. Staff has limited authority to regulate short term rentals due to state law, 
however, he noted that there is a text amendment in the pipeline to address the topic.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE. 
 
Committee Member Gore stated expressed concern that the city is allowing this to 
move forward before it has a plan to regulate short term rentals. He asked why this text 
amendment cannot address short term rentals and how the restrictive covenants would 
be enforced. Mr. Klimek stated that ADUs and short-term rentals are both complex 
topics and that the larger topic of short-term rentals requires more information. He 
added that enforcement will likely include requiring the applicant to provide evidence 
that a compliant covenant has been recorded. 
 
Committee Member Matthews noted that, if approved, he would like the new code 
section to be evaluated after one year to determine if it is working and if any 
adjustments are needed. 
 
Committee Member Perez stated that ADUs are more of a housing solution than a 
short-term rental problem. She expressed support for financial and procedural support 
for low- and moderate-income households to enable the people who need ADUs most 
to build them. 
 
Committee O’Connor asked if a second story ADU would be permitted. Mr. Klimek 
responded that a two story ADU is permitted; however, it is not permitted by right in the 
required rear yard or is allowed to exceed the height of the primary structure. 
Committee Member Larson asked if a second story of a home can be constructed as 
an ADU. Mr. Klimek responded that he was not certain.  
 
Committee Member Gore and Sommacampagna asked about how the covenants 
would be enforced. Mr. Klimek responded that the applicant would likely be required to 
provide evidence of a recorded and compliant covenant prior to being issued a building 
permit or Certificate of Occupancy for an ADU.  
 
Committee Member Alauria stated that she sees the benefit to the proposal as it 
provides a housing option for multigenerational households such as aging parents, 
young adults, and/or persons with disabilities.  
 
Committee Member Gore suggested that the City of Phoenix should provide loan

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
guarantees with the ADU and property as collateral. Committee Member Krentz 
responded that he is not supportive of requiring loan guarantees because there are 
separate financial assistance programs that exist that that these programs should not 
be mixed. Committee Member O’Hara stated that he is not onboard with loan 
guarantees and that it would not stand up legally. 
 
Committee Member McBride stated that the recommendation and direction does not 
need to be very specific but can instead focus on the spirit versus the letter of the 
recommendation.  
 
Committee Member Perez stated that affordability is key and that she is ok without 
loan guarantees but asked that financial assistance, such as a waiver of permit fees, 
and procedural assistance be considered help homeowners to overcome barriers. 
Committee Member Matthews stated that the building permits for an ADU would be 
less than $1,500 which is likely not enough to make a project infeasible. Committee 
Member Perez stated that most homeowners are not professional developers and 
would benefit from assistance navigating the city’s process. 
 
Committee Member Gore stated that he is still supportive of loan guarantees. Chair 
Jaramillo responded that microloan programs are difficult because many participants 
are deterred by the idea of having a lien on their property.  
 
MOTION: 
 
Committee Member Matthews moved to approve the request per the staff 
recommendation with the following direction to staff: include a 30 day minimum lease 
term, the locations of all approved ADUs shall be made public and be continually 
updated, staff shall conduct an assessment after 1 year to evaluate the number of units 
constructed and how the program is working, and the city shall explore options to assist 
low and moderate income homeowners to construct ADUs.  
 
Committee Member Perez seconded the motion.  
 
DISCUSSION: 
 
None. 
 
VOTE: 14-0-0, motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation with the 
direction provided by Committee Member Matthews, passes with Committee Members 
Alauria, Gore, Krentz, Larson, Matthews, McBride, Molfetta, O’Connor, O’Hara, Perez, 
Sommacampagna, Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Jaramillo in favor; none in 
opposition; and none in abstention.  
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 24, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
7-1 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support. 
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment for the accessory 
dwelling units. 
 
Questions from Committee: 
Toni Broberg inquired if the setback requirements would change in the rear. Mr. 
Moric said the setbacks in the rear and side for a detached ADU would be 3 feet 
unless there is a fully dedicated alley where it would be 0 feet. 
 
Chair Gasparro asked if the proposed text amendment would override HOA 
governed lots. Mr. Moric said the City process and HOA’s are separate processes 
where the city could issue the permit and the HOA could have more stringent 
regulations. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher asked how this would affect the parking and maneuvering in the 
front yard and Mr. Moric mentioned with accessory dwelling units the driveway area 
in the front yard could be a little larger. Mr. Fisher felt many of these accessory 
dwellings would turn into small businesses and VRBO’s. Mr. Moric replied that there 
would be a restrictive covenant where one of the structures would need to be owner 
occupied. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher wanted to understand what problems the City is trying to resolve 
here.  
 
Ms. Broberg brought up mother-in-law and next generation units, Ms. Broberg 
thought if people could have older parents live next to them it would be a nice 
alternative.

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Vice Chair Fisher felt that there was not enough time to analyze the pros and cons 
before going to Planning Commission. 
 
Mike Maloney wanted to better understand how regulating the short-term rental 
would be enforced and how expensive it would be to locate an ADU on a property. 
 
Chair Gasparro noted that if there is an ADU on each lot this may inundate the local 
street with traffic and parking. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher felt the text amendment was drafted in a vacuum and the direct 
impact by all the neighborhoods had not been addressed, and wanted to know when 
the stakeholders would be invited in the process. 
 
Mr. Moric explained that there was an information only item brought to the committee 
and all the Villages. 
 
Clifford Mager asked the date when this text amendment started. Sarah Stockham, 
staff, stated ADU’s as part of solution to reduce the cost of housing as part of the 
Housing Phoenix Plan, and it was approved by City Council 3 years ago. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher felt many details need to still be worked out. 
 
Mr. Moric indicated other communities were researched when creating the text 
language. 
 
Public Comments: 
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez said she was in favor of this text amendment, and it was 
interesting that it is easier to get a swimming pool than a house in the backyard.  
 
Mr. Neal Haddad from the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix referred to a 
letter that was previously sent out to the Committee. Mr. Haddad thought some items 
needed to be cleaned up such as special planning districts and overlays and had 
concerns with parking for ADU’s and thought there should be dedicated parking for 
the units. Mr. Haddad said the neighborhood he lives in is all built out and Mr. Haddad 
did not think the text amendment has been thought through enough and the city 
wants to make it easy to have these units. Mr. Haddad identified Flagstaffs 
requirements for ADU’s. Mr. Haddad felt short term rentals and HOA concerns 
needed to be better addressed and felt HOA’s needed to be involved in the process. 
 
Mr. Larry Whitesell from the Peak Neighborhood Association said the issue about 
public input and almost half of the Village Planning Committees for the first 
information item had no quorum. Mr. Whitesell added that the public process had not 
been thorough and the language of the restrictive covenant input was heard and 
brought into the text amendment. Mr. Whitesell felt the restrictive covenant that no 
rentals of the ADU’s except a 30 day minimum should be added. Mr. Whitesell added

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
that the increase of parking in the front yard would not be enough to park a car and 
there is a real issue with parking in front of neighbors homes. Mr. Whitesell felt the 
ADU should be on a separate meter for utilities. 
 
Ms. Broberg asked how much feedback Mr. Whitesell received for his text changes. 
Mr. Whitesell replied that they have not received feedback except at the VPC 
meetings where some of the Planners responded.  
 
Mike Maloney asked if someone wanted to build an accessory dwelling today for a 
family member can he build it now. Mr. Moric responded that there are certain zoning 
categories which allow guest houses, but this would apply to all lots where single 
family homes could go. 
 
Ryan Boyd from Phoenix Project was in support of the proposed text amendment, 
this was 3 years in the making and the Housing Phoenix Plan passed at the City 
Council by a 9-0 vote. Mr. Boyd said they supported this because of the affordability 
aspect, these would not be affordable without a subsidy. Mr. Boyd said there could be 
tweaks made to the language but urged the committee to recommend approval. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher said he was concerned that this was not affordable housing and 
wanted specific examples this would create affordable housing. Mr. Boyd said the 
ADU’s would be more affordable. 
 
Chair Gasparro said this increases the supply out there and by increasing the supply 
which could catch up to demand and help cause a reduction of the challenge in the 
Phoenix affordability problem. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher believed ADU’s did not cater to the affordability problem. 
 
Chair Gasparro explained that this would not be a final solution but a part of the total 
solution. 
 
Ms. Broberg emphasized this is a city-wide text amendment and that this may be 
different in Ahwatukee versus elsewhere in the city. 
 
Chair Gasparro said if 20,000 homes in the city of Phoenix get ADU’s it could be a 
significant amount to increase the housing supply. 
 
Mr. Boyd said had studies could send over to the Committee. 
 
Chair Gasparro thought maybe a good place to start would be ADU’s to have at least 
one parking spot per unit, a cap on the rental time period. 
 
Discussion: 
Vice Chair Fisher felt there was a lack of specificity that was brought to them at this 
time.

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Ms. Broberg shared that this proposal has been going on for 3 years. Vice Chair 
Fisher felt this needed to be a more collaborative effort. 
 
Mr. Mager was concerned once it gets approved, it cannot be undone and it could be 
exploited. 
 
Chair Gasparro felt it would be nice to come back to all the Villages for further 
discussion on this item. 
 
Motion: 
Vice Chair Darin Fisher motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Clifford 
Mager seconded the motion. 
 
Vote: 
7-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y passed, with Committee Members 
Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer, Fisher and Gasparro in favor; and Broberg 
in opposition. 
 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:  
 
Staff has no comments.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y  
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 25, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval with modifications, per the staff 
recommendation 
VPC Vote 
10-5 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
Committee Member Jamaar Williams joined during this item bringing quorum to 15 
members.  
 
Five members of the public register to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Mr. Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed 
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.  
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Jak Keyser asked about two story ADUs. Mr. Rogers stated that 
any portion of an ADU that encroaches into the rear yard setback will be limited to 15 
feet in height.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked what the rear yard setback distance is. Mr. 
Rogers stated that the rear yard setback would vary by zoning district.  
 
Mr. Rogers clarified that a detached bedroom without a kitchen is already allowed to be 
built and the proposed ordinance is allowing a detached bedroom with a kitchen to be 
built.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked about the one-foot setback that the packet details. 
Mr. Rogers stated that dedicated alleys can have reduced setbacks and explained that 
staff had been directed to make ADUs attainable.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 2 of 6 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Committee Member Pamala Fitzgerald asked about the occupancy rate of apartments 
in Phoenix and how the square footage of the ADU would be verified. Mr. Rogers 
stated that apartment vacancy rates are approximately 3.7 percent, the lowest it has 
been in 20 years and explained that the square footage would be verified during the 
permitting process.  
 
Committee Member Keith Ender asked about the process for converting existing 
structures into an ADU. Mr. Rogers stated that an ADU conversion will require a permit.   
 
Committee Member Tracey Adams asked about ADUs and Airbnb. Mr. Rogers stated 
that ADUs can be used as an Airbnb and explained that the property owner will be 
required to occupy the primary or accessory unit.  
 
Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked about HOA height restrictions. Mr. 
Rogers stated that HOA requirements will take precedent.  
 
Committee Member Maurita Harris asked about a 30 day lease requirement. Mr. 
Rogers explained that the 30 day lease was not included in the ordinance per 
advisement from the City of Phoenix legal team.  
 
Committee Member Keyser explained that ADUs built without permits cannot be 
insured and a mortgage cannot be pursued to finance the structure.  
 
Committee Member Fitzgerald asked how allowing the ADUs to be utilized as short-
term rentals will address the housing shortage. Mr. Rogers stated that, while some of 
the units will be used as short-term rentals, providing more housing options within the 
City will help to address the housing shortage.  
 
Committee Member Martin Shultz discussed financing, short term rentals, the City’s 
need for more housing, and stated that the text amendment should move forward.   
 
Committee Member Solorio stated that 15% to 20% of ADUs are used as short-term 
rentals, discussed the success of ADUs in other communities, and explained that most 
housing that is being built is luxury or single-family homes, so ADUs are a needed 
housing type.  
 
Committee Member Adams stated that the owner should be required to occupy the 
primary dwelling to maintain the neighborhood and community.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked about a time requirement for the owner-occupied 
requirement. Mr. Rogers stated he would have to take another look at the ordinance. 
Sarah Stockham, staff, stated there is no time requirement for the owner-occupied 
requirement. Committee Member Malkoon stated that ADUs will add to home values 
and make the homebuyers market less affordable.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 3 of 6 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Camp stated that many owners want to live in the ADU and stated 
that the owner should not be required to occupy the primary unit. Committee Member 
Camp added that the National Association of Relators and AARP both support ADUs.  
 
Committee Member Solorio referenced several reports that support ADUs, explained 
that ADUs are typically built in low to moderate income neighborhoods and serve the 
working poor, and stated that ADUs used to be legal.  
 
Committee Fitzgerald asked if ADU tenants would be expected to park in the street. 
Mr. Rogers stated that tenants can park in the driveway, an additional parking location 
can be permitted, or they can utilize street parking.  
 
Chair Bryck asked how close to the rear property line an ADU can be if it is in the rear 
yard setback and asked about fences. Ms. Stockham stated that ADUs can have up to 
a 0-foot setback if adjacent to a dedicated alley. Mr. Rogers stated that a fence cannot 
be used to create a private yard for the ADU tenant.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked if the text amendment addresses lot splits on sites 
with an ADU, stated that the vacancy rates sound too high, and asked if there was any 
pressure from the Biden administration. Mr. Rogers stated that the amendment does 
not address lots splits, but it could likely be done if minimum lot size requirements are 
met and stated that he is not aware of pressure from the Biden administration, but there 
was pressure from the state and the Housing Phoenix Plan calls out ADUs as a method 
that should be used to address housing shortages.  
 
Committee Member Dina Smith asked about the number of units that had been built to 
address the Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal to add 50,000 units by 2030 and asked why 
ADUs were outlawed if they used to be legal. Mr. Rogers stated he would try to find 
that information. Committee Member Solorio explained that zoning had been 
weaponized against people of low socioeconomic status and discussed missing middle 
housing.  
 
Committee Member Keyser stated that homes not being built for upper and lower 
classes impacts the housing supply for lower income people, spoke about the 
continuing trend of people migrating from California to Phoenix, and discussed the 
urban heat island effect.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon spoke about the positive impacts of Homeowner 
Associations and stated concerns about losing neighborhood organizations.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
Neal Haddad stated he would like to complain that the Neighborhood Coalition of 
Greater Phoenix’s (NCGP) letter regarding the text amendment was not sent out earlier 
and discussed concerns about parking, historic preservation, short term rentals, and not 
having an HOA supremacy clause as a part of the text amendment.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 4 of 6 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Jackie Rich stated she has concerns about evidence that short term rentals are 
associated with shootings, harassment, and trash, stated concerns about the 
enforcement of restrictive covenants, and stated the ADUs should have 30 day 
minimum lease. 
 
Sterling Sourk stated he approves of the height and property line separation and 
stated the ADUs would be great for affordability, and people who want their 
family/friends nearby. Mr. Sourk spoke about his positive experiences with short-term 
rentals.  
 
Wes Ballu stated that he would like to build an ADU for his aging parents and stated 
that the short-term rental market is oversaturated. Mr. Ballu stated that parking should 
not be required but provided on a case-by-case basis.  
 
Nicole Rodriguez stated that there are many short-term rentals and Section 8 homes 
near her residence and stated that renters are valuable. Ms. Rodriguez stated concerns 
about being told what she can do on her property, stated that 0-foot setbacks on lots 
adjacent to alleys makes alleys safer, stated that parking will not be needed for those 
who do not drive, stated the importance of stable housing, and stated that the 
committees have had months to learn how the ordinance will work.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked about HOA superiority. Mr. Rogers stated that 
HOAs have superiority and can regulate ADUs how they see fit.  
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
 
Mr. Rogers clarified that the NCGP had sent their letter directly to the VPC on July 
14th, but Mr. Rogers had not sent out the letter for a second time until the day of the 
meeting. Mr. Rogers stated that ADUs would be subject to historic preservation 
requirements and explained that the City’s legal team had advised staff to not include a 
30 day minimum lease. Mr. Rogers explained that residents can Airbnb detached 
bedrooms now, stated that the only difference between a detached bedroom and an 
ADU is a kitchen, explained that short-term rentals do not need kitchens, and asked 
why someone would pay all the development fees to add an ADU to their property if 
they could build a less expensive detached bedroom that can be used as a short-term 
rental.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
Committee Member Keith Ender stated that he had just read the NCGP letter and that 
all the members should read it.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked how the other Village Planning Committees had 
voted. Ms. Stockham stated that the text amendment had been approved by 10 
villages, denied by two villages, and had not been heard by two villages.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 5 of 6 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Committee Member Malkoon motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with 
direction to incorporate the changes in the NCGP letter of recommendation with respect 
to accessory dwelling units. Committee Member Harris seconded the motion.  
 
Committee Member Keyser stated that the modifications should be spelt out. Mr. 
Rogers clarified that the motion had been approved with direction to incorporate the 
changes in the NCGP letter in other villages.  
 
Committee Member Camp asked if there would be an opportunity to vote for the text 
amendment without stipulations.  
 
Committee Member Solorio explained that a substitute motion could be made.  
 
Committee Member Elizabeth Sanchez made a substitute motion to recommend 
approval of Z-TA 5-23-Y, per staff recommendation. Committee Member Solorio 
seconded the motion.  
 
Committee Member Keyser stated that the NCGP was too long to be used as legal 
language.  
 
Committee Member Williams stated the NCGP letter would not accomplish what the 
NCGP think it will accomplish and stated that the Planning Commission will not be 
receptive to this recommendation.  
 
Committee Member Keyser stated he would attend Planning Commission if the 
substitute motion passes and he changes his mind after reading the NCGP letter.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon introduced a friendly amendment to the substitute 
motion with guidance to staff to state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA 
and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and to require owners to live in one of the 
units for a minimum of two years.  
 
Chair Bryck asked Committee Member Sanchez and Committee Member Solorio if the 
friendly amendment as recommended by Committee Member Malkoon was acceptable. 
Committee Member Sanchez started she agreed to the friendly amendment. 
Committee Member Solorio stated he agreed to the friendly amendment.  
 
Mr. Rogers clarified that HOAs are regulated by the state, so a mention of them had 
been left out of the text amendment.  
 
VOTE 
10-5, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with modifications passes with 
Committee Members Adams, Camp, Harris, Keyser, Mulgado, Sanchez, Shultz, Solorio, 
Williams, and Bryck in favor and Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Ender, Fitzgerald, 
Malkoon, and Smith opposed.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 6 of 6 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION 
 
None.