Attachment J - Concerns - Z-TA-5-23-Y.pdf

1 August 2023 
Chair and Commissioners 
Planning Commission 
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) 
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: 
Attached with this letter is a correspondence the Neighborhood Coalition (NCGP) sent to all 
Village Planning Committees (VPCs) in July regarding the subject text amendments.  
NCGP representatives presented on the subject at ten of the 15 VPCs. 
Planning and Development submitted to you an addendum to the ADU text amendment. While 
we appreciate the effort to improve the TA, the changes have yet to be aired so we wish for a 
more fulsome public discussion before embracing the changes suggested.  
We continue to stand by our recommendations—amending the ADU TA to improve the clarity 
of its impact on historic preservation districts, special planning districts and overlays, and HOAs 
and CC&Rs. We also think managing short term rentals (STRs) deserves a greater inspection. 
We also believe that the proposed parking reductions to affordable and multifamily housing 
projects warrant substantial amendments to be considered viable on a citywide basis.  Indeed, 
nine of the 15 VPCs voted to deny the reduced parking text amendment as presented to you.  
Please consider the recommendations NCGP has offered you for both TAs. 
Respectfully, 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix members and friends 
att. 
ATTACHMENT J

11 July 2023 
Chair and Committee Members 
Desert View Village Planning Committee 
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department 
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) 
Chair and Committee members: 
The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix is registered with the Corporation Commission of 
the State of Arizona and has continuously been a member in good standing since 1984. Our 
members are from neighborhoods across the City of Phoenix.  
Background 
We understand that our nation is facing a housing shortage and that Arizona and Phoenix have 
not been spared from this shortage. NCGP members believe it falls upon all of us to help provide 
relief and a sustainable path forward.   
In that spirit, members of the NCGP working group gathered to review and discuss the proposed 
subject text amendments the City has anticipated to address our housing shortage.  
2023 Arizona Legislative Session 
This year’s session saw several housing bills make their way through the Legislature without 
success. Indeed, NCGP, its members and our partners across the Valley and the state were active 
in seeking ‘no’ votes from elected representatives. Ultimately, the bills were either voted down 
decisively, on a bipartisan basis, or they failed to make their way to the floor of either Chamber.1 
1 Senate bill SB1117 was denied in the Senate on a bipartisan vote, failing 20 to 9 in March. The bill was then 
broken into 3 separate bills: HB1161, HB1163 and SB2536. On the final day of voting in June, SB2536 was defeated 
on a bipartisan basis, 19-10. HB1161 and HB1163 failed to get a vote on the House floor, ending the bill sponsor’s 
push for so-called ‘zoning reform.’

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) 
P. 2 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 July 11, 2023 
We provide this information to let VPC members know that all the text amendments coming 
through committees in the last several months--and now this month—can claim origins from 
the bills at the state legislature that we are intimately familiar with. 
Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs)
Many of us think that ADUs can have a positive impact on the housing supply in our city. Yet, we 
believe that there are several elements of the proposed TA that require additional scrutiny. These 
are our comments and suggestions.
I. Historic Preservation and other Special Planning/Overlay Districts:
We have great concern that the TA as presented will create confusion and contention between 
this ordinance and the ordinances that govern properties of historic significance. Z-TA-5-23-Y 
must state that for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over 
the design review standards for ADUs. Specifically, the proposed language states: 
"(c) DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE 
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED 
THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS." 
The phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts 
MUST be reviewed by the HP Office. The proposed language is subject to misinterpretation that a 
project may EITHER be approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of 
Section 8.5 of the TA.  
To make it clear that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, we suggest the following 
language: 
"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject 
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the 
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or 
regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), 
Article 8 shall have precedence." 
We also believe the proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards), likewise does not 
make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic 
property (widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened. 
The proposed language states: 
"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be 
located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the 
required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE 
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOTBE REQUIRED TO BE LESS 
THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.”

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)  
P. 3 of 7 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 
 
 
 
 
      July 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
We think stronger language is needed to ensure that Historic Preservation regulation takes 
precedence over the ADU ordinance by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic 
Preservation", and adding the following sentence: 
 
"Any and all changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic 
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix 
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the 
provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent 
with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have 
precedence." 
 
Third, the proposed amendment Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) is also 
worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.  
 
The proposed language states:  
 
"b. A DETACHED ADU, WHEN VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT STREETS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 
WITH SIMILAR AND/OR COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND COLOR(S) AS THE 
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP 
ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)" 
 
Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", the language should be 
strengthened as follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties: 
 
Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following 
sentence: 
“A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject 
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the 
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or 
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take precedence." 
 
II. Parking for ADUs 
 
We agree that the amount of the front yard that can be allowed for parking needs to increase 
from 45% to 50% for parcels that are approved for an Additional Dwelling Unit. We also know, 
based on experience, that on-street parking will become more frequent.  
 
To ensure that property owners in proximity to a property with an ADU is not inconvenienced or 
that use of their property is not diminished, on-street parking should be regulated. Please note 
that homes subject to Historic Preservation, Special Zoning and Overlay Districts are still subject 
to whatever specific regulation(s) applies to those properties per the first consideration in this 
position statement.

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)  
P. 4 of 7 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 
 
 
 
 
      July 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Combining on-site and on-street parking concerns, the regulation should read: 
 
“A minimum of 1 parking space shall be available either on-site with adherence to Section 
720.F.1 as amended to 50% of the front yard, or on-street parking that must only be in 
front of the subject property unless the property is a corner lot and side-street parking is 
possible.” 
 
Consideration should also be given to adding language to ensure visibility triangles are 
maintained. 
 
III. Short Term Rental 
 
We appreciate the addition of the paragraph in the revised TA requiring a Restrictive Covenant 
but do not feel it is strong enough to meet the City’s goal of increasing affordable housing supply 
for permanent residents. As currently worded, the Restrictive Covenant will preclude investors 
who own residential property from applying for an ADU, but it does not prevent an owner-
occupied property from renting an ADU on a short-term basis. The consequence will have a 
negative impact on affordable housing for first time renters (e.g., college-aged adults), and 
temporary workers (e.g., traveling nurses), among others.  
 
The Restrictive Covenant paragraph should be revised to add the regulation that ADUs, if rented, 
must be for a term of no less than thirty (30) days. The current City of Flagstaff ordinance states: 
 
(a)The property owner, which includes title holders and contract purchasers, shall occupy 
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their principal residence, unless the 
primary dwelling unit and ADU are allowed to be separately leased or rented in 
accordance with subsection G of this Section. 
 
(b)The primary dwelling unit or the ADU that is not occupied by the property owner that is 
rented or leased shall be for a period of no less than 30 days. 
 
IV. Homeowners’ Associations/ CCRs 
 
The proposed TA does not address coordination with Homeowners’ Associations or Covenants, 
Conditions and Restrictions. By law, these contracts must be honored in addition to municipal 
codes and ordinances. This TA should state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA and 
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in addition to the provisions of the ordinance. 
 
Z- TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) 
We understand the desire to relieve what developers perceive as parking ‘constraints.’ We 
generally believe, however, that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking reductions does not 
reflect a thoughtful approach for a city of 517 square miles.

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)  
P. 5 of 7 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 
 
 
 
 
      July 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Any reduction in the current parking space calculations for multi-family housing, in any district 
and any price category, will put the burden of parking on public streets throughout the city. 
Therefore, any revisions to the current ordinance need careful consideration.  
 
We believe this TA is being rushed through the approval process without such diligence. With the 
goal of working together to find suitable solutions, we make observations and propose revisions 
to the current ordinance as follows: 
 
I. Parking space calculations for multi-family developments should only be based on 
proximity to currently available transportation options. They should never be based on 
the rental rates of the units (I.e., luxury, affordable, market rate, low-income/subsidized). 
It is discriminatory to believe that people who live in lower-priced housing do not have or 
do not want personal vehicles. 
 
 II. Because of the cost of apartment rentals, more units of every size are being shared 
by two or more people, oftentimes housemates rather than couples. Expecting that no 
occupant will have a car, even in TODs and WU code areas, is not based on empirical data. 
 
III. Reducing the on-site parking requirements for multi-family housing might be 
appropriate for residents living in the Downtown Core, Transit Oriented and WU Code 
districts, yet it is not acceptable to residents living outside of those districts.  
 
Phoenix is the second largest city by area in the United States. Because of the lack of 
convenient, reliable public transportation in every Phoenix Village outside of downtown 
and within walking distance of light rail, residents depend on personal vehicles to go to 
work, to the grocery, and to the entertainment venues clustered in downtown.  
 
Those residents who do not live downtown will also need parking to continue enjoying all 
that downtown has to offer. If all the street parking is taken by downtown residents, 
commuting patrons will be deterred from attending events. 
 
IV. Include a requirement that visibility triangles must be maintained. 
A. Reducing on-site parking to encourage more density with potentially small front 
and side setbacks could lead to encroachment on the visibility triangle that is a 
necessity to ensure safety. 
 
V. City-wide Multi-family Parking Requirement 
A. The base parking space requirement should be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.  
i. This simplifies the calculation instead of calculation based on size of DU 
ii. Maintains the current requirement as the most frequently built size of 
unit (1-2 bdrm) 
iii. Averages the current requirements (1.25/efficiency; 1.5/1-2 bdrm; 2/3 
bdrm)

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)  
P. 6 of 7 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 
 
 
 
 
      July 11, 2023 
 
 
 
iv. It should not be less than the current efficiency DU requirement 
 
 
VI. Citywide Affordable housing Parking Reduction 
A. Delete this provision because it does not consider proximity to alternative to 
personal vehicle modes of transportation. 
 
VII. Infill Development District Parking Reduction 
A. Delete the calculations entirely 
B. Use 10% bonus density incentive 
 
VII. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements 
A. Required parking should never be “zero” 
B. Parking for handicapped residents should always be required and maintained 
C. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas 
of the WU Code will not have personal vehicles 
D. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas 
of the WU Code will never have a guest with a personal vehicle 
 
IX. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code 
A. Also require parking of service vehicles (e.g., repair technicians) that require 
more time than the other stated examples 
B. Also require parking for renter move-in/move-out vehicles that require more 
time than the other stated examples 
 
Process: Lack of neighborhood outreach 
In a June 1, 2023, staff report to the City of Phoenix Planning Commission, PDD staff wrote: 
 
Staff obtained input from various stakeholders and held four meetings to review and 
request additional input on the proposed text amendment. Stakeholders included 
individuals from the following organizations: 
• Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona (MHCA) 
• Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona (MHIA) 
• Arizona Department of Housing Board of Manufactured Housing Member 
• Affordable Housing/Private Developers 
• Arizona State University, Real Estate Development 
 
While we understand that staff feels the need to reach out to industry representatives to 
understand their position, so, too does staff need to reach out to citizens and neighborhoods to 
understand the issues of the vast swaths of residents who will be impacted by these proposed 
sweeping changes to our housing stock.  
 
Does the City of Phoenix think that simply vetting these proposals—changes that can have a vast 
impact on the existing population—should only be presented to VPCs?

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)  
P. 7 of 7 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 
 
 
 
 
      July 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Clearly, some VPCs took issue with the speed and confusion of the proposals of the initial two 
text amendments when they were presented. It appears six of 15 VPCs did not meet quorum on 
the first go-around; yet another VPC did not meet quorum last night. 
 
We ask: How can vast changes to the entire city be vetted by, perhaps, 150 people or less? 
 
Next steps: Approve our recommended amendments 
We have pored over these proposals to identify the gaps and looked ahead to stave off 
unintended consequences. We’ve shared those with you here. Simply approving what’s been 
presented in your packet would be to ignore the serious concerns we’ve presented without 
rectifying those issues.  
 
The Neighborhood Coalition looks to make these TAs the strongest and most applicable they can 
be. We would be disappointed if members simply approved the proposals “as is” because we 
don’t want to see this opportunity squandered for the sake of speed, with all of us missing out on 
something that can truly help our city now and in the future.  
 
Respectfully, 
 
 
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP) 
Neal Haddad, President, NCGP; Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association 
B. Paul Barnes, Vice President, NCGP; AZ APA Distinguished Citizen Planner; former CEVPC chair 
Mary Crozier, President, North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association 
Sandy Grunow, Co-Chair, Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association 
Dave Jackson, President, Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association 
Jack Leonard, architect, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP; 2015 General Plan update committee;  
former Camelback East and Encanto Village Planning Committees 
Michael Phillips, President, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association 
Jackie Rich, President, Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association 
Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association

July 28, 2023 
 
 
 
Helana Ruter 
Interim Historic Preservation Officer 
City of Phoenix 
200 West Washington St., 3rd Floor 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
Re: Importance of Abiding by City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Ordinance for ADUs 
 
Dear Helana: 
 
Historic preservation ordinances play a crucial role in maintaining the cultural and architectural 
heritage of the City of Phoenix. These regulations safeguard properties of historic significance, 
and their architectural characteristics including their setting and overall density. The proposed 
“ADU ordinance”, Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs), has garnered much attention 
for its potential to increase housing supply. While ADUs can be beneficial, it is vital to address 
concerns regarding density considerations in order to ensure the coexistence of ADUs with 
historic neighborhoods, and in some cases individual historic properties.  
 
I. Protecting Historic Properties: 
 
The City recognizes the importance of preserving its historic districts and properties.  It is crucial 
to avoid any conflict between Z-TA-5-23-Y and the existing historic preservation ordinances and 
other regulations relating to lot coverage, heigh and scale – especially in the historic 
neighborhoods.  It is therefore imperative that Z-TA-5-23-Y explicitly states that Chapter 8 of 
the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over any new design review standards for ADUs in 
regards to properties and neighborhoods listed on the Phoenix Historic Property Register.   
 
To avoid confusion, the language of all proposed regulations pertaining to ADUs should be 
revised to state that "Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning 
overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to 
Article 8 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 therein or 
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic 
Preservation), Article 8 shall have precedence."

II. Strengthening Parking Standards: 
 
The proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) should be amended to emphasize that HP approval also 
pertains to driveways, parking, and maneuvering areas within a historic district or properties 
with HP or HP-L zoning overlay. Driveways are often character-defining aspects of properties 
that effect the overall character of the site and setting. This revision is necessary to maintain 
the integrity and character of historic neighborhoods. 
 
To achieve this, the phrase "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic Preservation" should be 
removed from section 702.F.1 and the following sentence should be added: "Any and all 
changes to driveways, parking, and maneuvering areas within a historic district and/or with HP 
or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office 
pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 702.F.1 
herein or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have precedence." 
 
III. Ensuring Compliance for ADUs in Historic Districts: 
 
The proposed amendment to Section 706.A.3.b of the ADU ordinance requires careful wording 
to make it evident that HP approval is mandatory for ADUs within historic districts or properties 
with HP or HP-L zoning overlay. 
 
To achieve clarity, the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." should be 
removed, and the following sentence should be added: “A detached ADU within a historic 
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject to review by the City of Phoenix 
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the 
provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or other ordinance or regulations are 
inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take 
precedence." 
 
IV:  Department Coordination and Permit Streamlining: 
 
There needs to be a concerted cross-departmental effort to resolve any zoning conflicts 
between Historic Preservation and conventional standards. Conflicts between various 
departmental objectives will constrain the effectiveness of the design guidelines pertaining to 
historic and architectural factors. The internal inefficiencies will put more pressure on the 
Historic Preservation Office to simply capitulate in deference to the goal creating the more 
housing units   If the Historic Preservation Officer, and the office staff does not have clear 
consensus to balance the objectives to protect the context of the historic neighborhoods, the 
overall character of the historic neighborhoods will quickly deteriorate due to the influx of new 
housing units.

The zoning ordinance needs to be thoroughly reviewed and conflicting policies addressed 
across departments such as Site Development, Site Planning, Parking, Traffic, etc.  Property 
owners and ADU designers need to have access to a clear flow chart of the regulatory 
requirements to achieve the intent of the ADU ordinance with existing historic preservation 
objectives and guidelines. 
 
It is crucial to implement these proposed revisions to Z-TA-5-23-Y to ensure the continued 
preservation of our city's rich heritage.  
  
Sincerely, 
 
Roger Brevoort 
Chair, Advocacy Committee 
Preserve Phoenix 
 
cc:  
Kate Gallego, Mayor 
 
Members of Council 
 
Alan Stephenson, City of Phoenix 
 
Josh Bednarek, City of Phoenix 
 
Kevin Weight, City of Phoenix 
 
Members, Historic Preservation Commission 
 
G.G. George, Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition 
 
 
Neal Haddad, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
 
Jim McPherson, Arizona Preservation Foundation 
 
Donna Reiner, Postwar Architecture Task Force of Greater Phoenix

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
jvrich@gmail.com
Sent:
Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:46 PM
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
Comments on Agenda Items 16 and 7 (Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y)
Dear Planning Commissioners, 
I am writing this email to urge you to take your time in considering the proposed complex text amendments pertaining to Accessory 
Dwelling Units and Reduced Parking Requirements.  Do not rush into a decision before you are comfortable that what you are acting on 
will not come back and bite you and the city of Phoenix at a later date.   
 
These two text amendments will have a big impact on Phoenix and Phoenicians.  They sprung from the Planning Department, were 
sent to the Village Planning Committees for their recommendations (all of whom are Council appointees), now you, also Council 
appointees, are considering them, and then finally, the Council will act on them.  The public’s opportunity to provide input was neither 
publicized or solicited.  No neighborhood stakeholders were included in their development. While there were articles in the AZ 
Republic about the Accessory Dwelling Unit amendment as early as July 3, the first article on the parking reduction text amendment 
was on July 19, when all but 3 VPCs had already met and made recommendations.  It is also worth mentioning that the agendas for the 
VPCs did not identify Z-TA-8-23-Y as reducing required parking although they identified the other amendment as allowing 
ADUs.  Instead the agenda listed all the sections that needed to be changed so that someone looking at it would have no idea what that 
text amendment was actually about. 
 
The only members of the public who have participated in the VPC meetings are people who serve on a different VPC, work for an 
industry that would benefit from these amendments, or neighbors and neighborhood groups who accidentally found out about the 
amendments.   I have been to five VPC meetings, each of which lasted for as long as 3.5 hours, just to be able to speak for 2 minutes 
max on each text amendment. (Note, some VPCs allowed more time for members of the public to speak - just not the ones I attended.) 
At the meetings I attended, I was not allowed to ask questions.  Following public comments, staff often offered a rebuttal to what 
members of the public said, and after that the public was ignored - no opportunity for any of us to answer questions that came up or to 
respond to incorrect information. It was frustrating. 
 
I have other concerns about the VPC meetings. The packets that were sent to the VPC members online were well in excess of 200 
pages.  Some packets weren’t sent out until after 3:30 pm the day of the meeting; some VPC members never received a packet; other 
VPC members received packets but didn’t read them (perhaps because of lack of time or because of the length). There was a 
questionable email conversation about the text amendments that all VPC members were part of and which was potentially in violation of 
the Open Meeting Law that was referred to at a VPC meeting by several VPC members.  Several of the VPCs did not have a quorum in 
June and so learned about the text amendments for the first time in July when they were expected to vote on them.  
 
Some of the Planning Commission members are essentially in the same position as those VPC members who had the least amount of 
time to learn about the text amendments. They are hearing staff’s presentation about these complex text amendments on the same 
night they are expected to vote on them.  Your consideration of the text amendments will be late in the night after considering 13 other 
cases.  How many hundreds of pages were in your packet?  The text amendments alone are a lot of information to digest in an evening. 
 
These text amendments are too important and consequential to be rushed through and there is no compelling reason to do so.  I urge 
you to take your time and give these text amendments the time and attention that they deserve. 
 
Thank you, 
 
Jackie Rich 
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association

1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Opal Wagner <opal.wagner@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 1, 2023 9:43 AM
To:
PDD Planning Commission
Cc:
Council District 4; Joshua Bednarek; Helana Ruter; Tricia Gomes; Bradley Brauer
Subject:
URGENT: Letter Re: Z-TA-5-23-Y (Item #16 at Aug. 2nd Planning Commission)
Attachments:
Gmail - Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs).pdf
Dear Planning Commissioners: 
 
I am writing to request that Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (the text amendment permitting ADUs in Phoenix) be revised and amended to 
clarify that, for ADU applications in historic districts, Phoenix's existing Historic Preservation guidelines supersede the 
design standards in the text amendment.  
 
Upon receipt of Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y as a member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee, I immediately became concerned 
about confusing wording in the TA that gives the impression that compliance with the Historic Preservation Office 
approval process and guidelines is optional. I immediately called Helana Ruter, the City's Historic Preservation Officer to 
let her know of my concerns, which I followed up in a letter with suggested changes to the TA (see attached). I also sent 
a copy of the TA to a local attorney involved in preservation matters, who agreed with my assessment of the confusing 
wording and deemed the TA "poorly drafted" with regard to historic properties. 
 
At the Encanto Village Planning Committee meeting on July 10th, I presented these concerns to Mr. Chris DePerro, the 
author of the TA. Although the purpose of presentation of text amendments to the Village Planning Committees is to 
receive the members' feedback to improve the final version, this was not the case, as Mr. DePerro pushed back on every 
suggested change, insisting he knew what he was doing based on his many years of experience, stating no changes were 
needed. He said the "intent" of the text amendment was that it was subordinate to HP guidelines, while acknowledging 
this was not expressly stated in the TA. I told Mr. DePerro I would have to vote "no", since I had to vote on the language 
in front of me ‐ not his "intent."  
 
I believe the revisions stated in my letter to Helana Ruter and expressed to Mr. DePerro at the EVPC meeting are 
necessary to clarify that the existing City of Phoenix Historic Preservation guidelines supersede the design standards 
in the text amendment. Without this additional language and clarification, it is likely the text amendment's wording may 
be misconstrued to create the impression that HP guidelines are optional and may be overridden. I am concerned that it 
is also unclear whether special planning and conservation districts, zoning overlays and HOAs may be superseded by Z‐
TA‐5‐23‐Y. All these concerns could be laid to rest with a few simple revisions. 
 
I urge you to pass Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y with the revisions suggested in my attached letter, as well as those suggested by the 
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition, Neighborhoods Coalition of Greater Phoenix, several of the VPCs and others. 
This text amendment is transformational in its nature and, in my opinion, we all need to slow down and take the time to 
get it right. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Opal Wagner 
330 W. Coronado Rd. 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
520‐444‐5698

8/1/23, 9:25 AM
Gmail - Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs)
Page 1 of 2
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=dd4dc27c6e&view=pt&search=…g-a:r8968094810990089166&simpl=msg-a:r8968094810990089166&mb=1
Opal Wagner <opal.wagner@gmail.com>
Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs)
1 message
Opal Wagner <opal.wagner@gmail.com>
Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 12:45 PM
To: Helana Ruter <helana.ruter@phoenix.gov>
Bcc: Opal Wagner <opal.wagner@gmail.com>
Dear Helana,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me this morning about concerns I have with language in the above TA as it
applies to Phoenix's historic districts. I believe the TA as written fails to make it clear that ADUs in historic districts
must comply with the design review procedures and standards of Chapter 8, the Historic Preservation Zoning
Ordinance.  To recap, the specific concerns I have are as follows:
1) The proposed amendment to Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A 11.C 8 (Single-Family Detached Design Review) (p. 6,
Section 8(c) of the TA) does not make it clear that, for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes
precedence over the design review standards for ADUs set forth in the TA. The current language states:
"(c)  DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. ."
I think the phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts MUST be
reviewed by the HP Office. I think the current language is subject to misinterpretation that a project may EITHER be
approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of Section 8.5 of the TA. In order to make it clear
that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, I suggest the following language:
"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of
Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of
Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic
Preservation), Article 8 shall apply."
2) I believe the proposed amendment to Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards) (p. 178 of the TA), likewise
does not make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic property
(widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened. The current language states:
"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be located in the required front
yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent
(45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC
PRESERVATION.
I think it should be made clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for changes to front yard parking for historic properties
by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic Preservation", and adding the following sentence, "Any and all
changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay
are subject to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
In the event the provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8
of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall apply."
3) The proposed amendment to Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) (p. 180 of the Text
Amendment) is also worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.

8/1/23, 9:25 AM
Gmail - Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs)
Page 2 of 2
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=dd4dc27c6e&view=pt&search…g-a:r8968094810990089166&simpl=msg-a:r8968094810990089166&mb=1
The current language states: 
"b. A DETACHED ADU, WHEN VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT STREETS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SIMILAR
AND/OR COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND COLOR(S) AS THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, OR AS
MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)"
Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", I think the language should be strengthened as
follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties:
Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following sentence:
A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject to review by the City of
Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of
Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall apply."
As I mentioned this morning, this TA is on the Encanto Village Planning Committee agenda for a possible vote on
Monday, July 10th. I wanted to make the HP Office aware of my above concerns with some of the language of the TA
and how it might be misconstrued to weaken the HP Office's role with regard to ADU approval. If you share these
concerns with any of the TA's current language or have any stipulations to offer, the  committee would surely value
hearing from you.
Thanks again for taking the time to hear my concerns and have a great rest of your day.
Sincerely,
Opal
PS I've attached a copy of the TA for handy reference (the highlighting is mine). -O.
Z-TA-5-23-Y_Accessory Dwelling Units-2.pdf
5004K