Extracted text (via pymupdf)
74960 characters
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
May 4, 2021
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Date:
January 26, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date:
February 4, 2021
May 6, 2021
Request From:
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.18 acres) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) (3.11 acres)
Request To:
PUD (Planned Unit Development) (3.29
acres)
Proposed Use:
Multifamily Residential
Location:
Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street
Owner:
Donor Network of Arizona
Applicant:
Trinsic Residential Group, Todd
Gosselink
Representative:
Withey Morris PLC, Jason Morris
Staff Recommendation:
Approval, subject to stipulations
BACKGROUND
The original proposal requested to rezone the subject site at the southeast corner of 3rd
Avenue and Coolidge from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) to WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5, Uptown
Transit Character Area) for multifamily residential.
The proposal was to redevelop the existing office property into a four-story multifamily
structure with a limited fifth floor mezzanine. Staff recommended approval of the request
subject to 13 stipulations.
On January 26, 2021, the Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard the case and
recommended approval per the staff recommendation by a 15 to 1 vote. On February 4,
2021, the Planning Commission heard the case and recommended approval per the
$WWDFKPHQW&
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021
Page 2 of 7
Alhambra Village Planning Committee recommendation by a 7 to 1 vote with one
additional stipulation. The added stipulation was for the execution of a Proposition 207
Waiver.
After the Planning Commission Meeting, the case was continued by the City Council on
March 3rd to allow for additional communication regarding concerns. A series of
meetings were then held to discuss concerns regarding height, setbacks, number of
units, traffic, privacy, and flooding.
On April 7, 2021, Councilwoman Pastor moved that the case be remanded back to the
Planning Commission as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with conditions to address
community concerns. The motion passed unanimously and included the following
conditions for the PUD resubmittal.
1.
To address all staff stipulations and the following items based on discussions
with the neighborhood.
2.
To include an overall maximum building height of 48 feet, except for the
parking garage which shall be limited to 56 feet.
3.
To include a minimum setback of 20 feet between the curb and the building
faces on both Coolidge Street and 3rd Avenue.
4.
To restrict the maximum number of dwelling units to 210.
5.
To prohibit vehicular access to 3rd Avenue.
6.
To require the applicable “frontage types” be identified along 3rd Avenue.
7.
To address landscape and design features in response to neighborhood
considerations on 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street.
8.
To require permit parking throughout the neighborhood.
PROPOSAL
The PUD is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that produced by
conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Where the PUD Development
Narrative is silent on a requirement, the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be
applied.
Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped April 29, 2021.
The PUD would allow the development of a five story multifamily development
Development but with notable revisions to the original request in response to community
concerns and the City Council motion.
Permitted Land Uses
The PUD utilizes the Permitted Use List found in Chapter 618 for R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) with modifications to remove specified uses for the purposes
of promoting neighborhood compatibility.
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021
Page 3 of 7
The land uses prohibited by the PUD include the following: bed and breakfast
establishment; boarding house; group foster home; hotel or motel; environmental
remediation facility; branch offices for the following: banks, building and loan
associations, brokerage houses, savings and loan associations, finance
companies, title insurance companies and trust companies; and veterinary
offices.
Development Standards
Density: A maximum of 210 dwelling units.
Building Height: A maximum height of 48 feet along 3rd Avenue and Coolidge
Street and a maximum height of 56 feet for the parking structure. The proposed
regulation in the applicant’s narrative is not precisely aligned with the motion
which would require all buildings be limited to 48 feet with only the parking
structure being allow the 56 feet maximum. Stipulation 1.b. revises the
requirement to align with the City Council motion.
Building Setbacks: A minimum setback of 20 feet from both 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Streets, as measured between the back of curb and the building front.
Landscape Setbacks: A minimum setback of 20 feet from both 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Streets, as measured between the back of curb and the building front.
Planting Standards: The planting standards meet or exceed the requirements of
the Walkable Urban Code and the original stipulations for the all perimeters of
the subject site.
Vehicular Access: No vehicular access is permitted from 3rd Avenue.
Detached Sidewalks and Pedestrian Ways: The PUD requires the public
sidewalks be detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5 foot landscape
area that will be planted with four inch caliper (25 percent), three inch caliper (25
percent) and two inch caliper (50 percent) trees at a rate of 20 feet on center.
These standards will create 75 percent shade over the public sidewalk and meet
or exceed the requirements of the Walkable Urban Code and the original
stipulations.
Ground Level Frontage Types:
x North and West: The PUD requires that 70 percent of the ground level
building face oriented to 3rd Avenue have stoops and doorwells, patios,
and/or porches.
x South (Grand Canal Orientation): The PUD requires 20 percent of the
ground level building face oriented to the south conform to a frontage type.
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021
Page 4 of 7
Design Guidelines
The PUD incorporates all staff stipulations detailed in the recommendations of
the Alhambra Village Planning Committee and the Planning Commission. These
stipulations pertained to open space design, planting standards, architectural
enhancements and restrictions, and required frontage types. The PUD
incorporates each of these stipulations. Additionally, the PUD prohibits balconies
to the north and west unless “juliet” style.
ANALYSIS
The current rezoning request fulfills the abovementioned City Council direction
of filing for a PUD and the associated requirements with the below modifications:
Height: The PUD Narrative proposes a maximum height of 48 feet along 3rd
Avenue and Coolidge Street compared to the motion which would restrict all
buildings to 48 feet and the parking structure to 56 feet.
x Stipulation No. 1.b revises the PUD to align with the City Council motion.
South Facing “Frontage Types” and Publicly Accessible Open Space: The
PUD Narrative proposes that 20 percent of the total building face be developed with
“frontage types” to activate the space between the building and the canal; while this
is a reduction from the original stipulation which required 40 percent, the applicant
has compensated for the change by adding publicly accessible open space along
the canal as requested through the public hearing process.
In order to ensure that the publicly accessible open space is provided, a modification
to the development narrative has been added to dictate requirements for a publicly
accessible open space, that will be landscaped and programmed with amenities.
x Stipulation No. 1.c. revises the PUD to include additional publicly accessible
open space adjacent to the canal with a depth of 25 feet for the majority of the
southern property line and programmed with amenities such as benches and
shade structures.
Permit Parking in the Neighborhood: The applicant has indicated their intent to
implement permit parking for their residents, however, this program is off-site and
therefore cannot be stipulated.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following revised stipulations:
1.*
The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021
Page 5 of 7
AN UPDATED DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE FOR THE AURA
UPTOWN PUD REFLECTING THE CHANGES APPROVED
THROUGH THIS REQUEST SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS
OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST. THE UPDATED
DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE DATE STAMPED APRIL 29, 2021, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
a.
FRONT COVER: REVISE THE SUBMITTAL DATE
INFORMATION ON THE BOTTOM TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED: [ADD ADOPTION DATE].
b.
PAGE 8, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE, BUILDING
HEIGHT: MODIFY BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD TO READ
AS FOLLOWS: A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 48 FEET FOR ALL
BUILDINGS EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING GARAGE WHICH
SHALL BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56 FEET.”
c.
PAGE 9, LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE,
CANALSCAPE; MODIFY THE FIRST BULLET POINT TO READ
AS FOLLOWS: A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE LANDSCAPED
GREENSPACE AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO
THE ARIZONA GRAND CANAL TRAIL ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF THE PROPERTY. AT MINIMUM, THE GREEN SPACE
AREA WILL MEASURE 4,800 SQUARE FEET, 15 FEET IN
DEPTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 260 FEET, 7 FEET IN DEPTH
FOR A DISTANCE OF 70 FEET, AND SHALL BE GENERALLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IN EXHIBIT 7. A
MINIMUM OF 3 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, WHICH COULD
INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, BENCHES AND SHADE
CANOPIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE
AREA.
2.
The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.
3.
Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021
Page 6 of 7
4.
The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
5.
No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6.
The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7.
The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
8.
The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a.
A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the
Grand Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to:
standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump;
and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while adjusting the bike.
b.
All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section
1307.H.6.d of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured
parking.
c.
Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be
provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of
50 spaces near entrances of buildings and installed per the
requirements of Section 1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
2.
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
3.
This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a.
The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021
Page 7 of 7
limits on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to
the proposed facilities have been considered, following the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph
60.3); this includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest
versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b.
A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for
review and approval of Floodplain requirements.
c.
The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.
4.
The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
5.
The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
6.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
7.*
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Sketch Map
Community Correspondence (105 pages)
Z-56-20 Aura Uptown Planned Unit Development date stamped April 29, 2021
=
=63
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
5
5
+5
+3
5
5
&
38'
5
3
5
&
5+3
5
5$
3
&
5
5 +3
5
5
5
3
&
&
R-4A H-R *
Z-9-89
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
Z-175-87
C-2 H-R*
Z-60-85
67$9(
&$03%(//$9(
1'$9(
7+$9(
5'$9(
&(175$/$9(
0,11(=21$$9(
+,*+/$1'$9(
(/067
+$=(/:22'67
&22/,'*(67
&DQDOVFDSH
7UDQVLW
2YHUOD\'LVWULFW
72'
&HQWUDO$YHQXH
'HYHORSPHQW
6WDQGDUGV
72''LVWULFW
8S7RZQ
1257+(51$9(
*/(1'$/($9(
%(7+$1<+20(5'
&$0(/%$&.5'
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
7+$9(
5'$9(
67$9(
,
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
&,7<&281&,/',675,&7
I
$33/,&$17
61$0(
$33/,&$7,2112
=
*5266$5($,1&/8',1*675((7
$1'$//(<'(',&$7,21,6$3352;
$FUHV
08/7,3/(63(50,77('
0D[LPXP8QLWV$OORZHGZLWK35'%RQXV
55
38'
&219(17,21$/237,21
81,7635'237,21
1$
7ULQVLF5HVLGHQWLDO*URXS7RGG*RVVHOLQ
'$7(
5(9,6,21'$7(6
$(5,$/3+272
48$57(56(&12
46
=21,1*0$3
+
5(48(67('&+$1*(
)520 5 DF
5 DF
72
38' DF
'RFXPHQW3DWK 6 ?'HSDUWPHQW6KDUH?,QIRUPDWLRQ6\VWHPV?3/*,6?,6B7HDP?&RUHB)XQFWLRQV?=RQLQJ?VNHWFKBPDSV??=P[G
=
0LOHV
=
=63
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
5
5
+5
+3
5
5
&
38'
5
3
5
&
5+3
5
5$
3
&
5
5 +3
5
5
5
3
&
&
R-4A H-R *
Z-9-89
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
Z-175-87
C-2 H-R*
Z-60-85
67$9(
&$03%(//$9(
1'$9(
7+$9(
5'$9(
&(175$/$9(
0,11(=21$$9(
+,*+/$1'$9(
(/067
+$=(/:22'67
&22/,'*(67
&DQDOVFDSH
7UDQVLW
2YHUOD\'LVWULFW
72'
&HQWUDO$YHQXH
'HYHORSPHQW
6WDQGDUGV
72''LVWULFW
8S7RZQ
0DULFRSD&RXQW\$VVHVVRU
V2IILFH
1257+(51$9(
*/(1'$/($9(
%(7+$1<+20(5'
&$0(/%$&.5'
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
7+$9(
5'$9(
67$9(
,
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
&,7<&281&,/',675,&7
I
$33/,&$17
61$0(
$33/,&$7,2112
=
*5266$5($,1&/8',1*675((7
$1'$//(<'(',&$7,21,6$3352;
$FUHV
08/7,3/(63(50,77('
0D[LPXP8QLWV$OORZHGZLWK35'%RQXV
55
38'
&219(17,21$/237,21
81,7635'237,21
1$
7ULQVLF5HVLGHQWLDO*URXS7RGG*RVVHOLQ
'$7(
5(9,6,21'$7(6
$(5,$/3+272
48$57(56(&12
46
=21,1*0$3
+
5(48(67('&+$1*(
)520 5 DF
5 DF
72
38' DF
'RFXPHQW3DWK 6 ?'HSDUWPHQW6KDUH?,QIRUPDWLRQ6\VWHPV?3/*,6?,6B7HDP?&RUHB)XQFWLRQV?=RQLQJ?VNHWFKBPDSV??=P[G
=
0LOHV
3DWE
'B7F_&GCJ<F_
GA4J6P4_0CHG4?<_)H4KK<P_
!BU\_L>_)AL=KB[_
*G4KKCK?__"<Y<ILNJ<KU_"=N4RJ<KV_
_1=TU_14TADK?ULK_,UP<=U_
*AL=KD[_ 3_ _
+= _ XQ5_/NVLZK_2 _
$_4J_4_P<TB:=KU_L>_UA<_)B=PTLK_*G47<_#BTULPC7_"BTUPC9_4K:_$_4J_CK_TXNNLS_L>_UA=_NPLNLT<:_P<^LKBK?_
L>_ _ 1_ !LLHB:?<_ ,UP==U_ >MP_ UA<_ :=Y=HLNJ=KU_ L>_ UA=_ XP4_ /NULZK_ JXHUB
>4JCG\_ P<TB:<KVC4I_
NPLE=8_
XP4_/NVLZK_BT_4_6=4XUC>XG_ Z=HH :<TC?K<:_NPLE<9_UA4U_BT_4NNPLNPC4V=_>LP_VA=_NPLN<QV\_?CY=K_UA=_
=[BTVBK?_JXHUC>4JBH\_^LKCK?_4:E47=KV_:<Y=GLNJ<KV_4K:_NH47=J<KU_ZBUACK_UA=_/NULZK_-("_)H4K_
%_6<GC<Y<_UABT_NPLE=7U_ZBHG_NPLYB:=_4WP49CY=_Z4GF46H= _AC?AOX4GCU\_JXHUB>4JBH\_ALXTBK?_4U_4_T74G=_
4K;_:=KTCU\_UA4U_BT_T=KTBUCY<_UL_UA=_TXQQLXK:BK@_K<B?A6LPALL:T_4K:_7LJJXKBU\_
)PLN<S]
_4K:_$_XP?<_UA<_!BV\_!LXK7BG_UL_4NNPLY<_BU_
.ABT_ DT_ UA<_ U\N=_ L>_ N<:=TVPC4K LQB<KU=:_ :=Y<ILNJ=KV_ <KYBTBLK=:_ 6\_UA<_ /NVLZK_ -
_
>LP_ UACT_
3DWE
#;1?V"@;B4?V
@:/B0J/V,;@@/94V%@/CC4JV
;NTVD6V%:D4C;SV
&A/CC;C9VV 4Q4@DGB4CNV 4G/JOB4CNV
V-4MNV-/M:;C9NDCV(NJ44NV
%:D4C;SV .VV
'4 V PJ/V*GNDRCV.
V
!V/BV/VJ4M;34CNVD6VN:4V%;4KDCV%@/14V ;MNDJ;1V ;MNJ;1NV/C3V!V/BV;CVMPGGDLVD6VN:4VGJDGDM43VJ5DC;C9V
D6V V -V DD@;394V (NJ44NV 6EJV N:4V 34Q4@DGB4CNV D6V N:4V PJ/V *GNDRCV BP@N; 7B;@TV J4M;34CN;/@V
GJD<42V
PJ/V*HNDRCV;MV/V04/PN;6P@V R4@@ 34M;9C43VGJD=41NVN:/NV;MV/GGJDHJ;/N4V8JVN:4VGJDG4JOTV9;Q4CVN:4V
4S;MN;C9VBP@N;
6/B;@TVUDC;C9V/3</14CNV34Q4@DHB4CNV/C3VG@/14B4CNVR;N:;CVN:4V*GNDRCV)$ V%@/CV
!V04@;4Q4VN:;MVHJF>42VR;@@VGJDQ;34V/NNJ/2;Q4VR/@?/0@4V:;9:
IP/@;NTVBP@N;
6/B;@TV:DPM;C9V/NV/VM1/@4V
/C3V34CM;NTVN:/NV;MVM4CM;N;Q4VNDVN:4VMPJJDPC3;C9VC4;9:0DJ:DD3MV/C3V1DBBPC;NTV
):;MV ;MV N:4V NTG4V D6V G434MNJ;/C
DJ;4CN43V 34Q4@DHB4CNV 4CQ;M;DC43V 0TV N:4V +HNDRCV )$ V8JV N:;MV
%JDG4JNTV/C3V!VPJ94VN:4V ;NTV DPC1;@VNDV/GGJDQ4V;NV
3DWE
"@;B6?X
@:0B1I0X,<@@096X$@0CC6IX
;NVXD7X$:D6C;UX
$@0CC;C9XX 6R6@DGB6CNX 6G0INB6CNX
X-6MNX.0M:;C9NDCX&NI66NX
$:D6C<UX /XX
%6 X PI0X+GNDTCX/
X
!X0BX0XI6M;56CNXD7XN:6X$;6IMDCX$@026X <MNDI<2X ;MNI;2NX0C5X!X0BX<CXMPGGDLXD7XN:6XGIDGDM65XI6WDC;C9X
D7X X -X DD@;596X &NJ66NX 7FIX N:6X 56R6@DGB6CNX D7X N:6X PI0X *GNDTCX BP@N;
70B;@VX I6M;56CN;0@X
GID=62OX
PI0X+GNDTCX;MX0X160PN;7P@X T6@@ 56M<9C65XGIE>64XN:0NX;MX0GGIDGI;0N6X7DIXN:6XGIDG6LVX9<R6CXN:6X
6U<MN<C9XBP@N< 70B;@VXWDC<C9X05>026CNX56S6@DGB6CNX0C5XG@026B6CNXT<N:<CXN:6X+GNDTCX'# X$@0CX
!X16@;6S6XN:<MXGID=63XT;@@XGKDS<56X0OOI02N;R6XT0@?01@6X:<9: HP0@<NVXBPAN<
70B<@VX:DPM;C9X0NX0XM20@6X
0C5X56CM<NVXN:0NX;MXM6CM<N;S6XNDXN:6XMPIJDPC5;C9XC6;9:1DI:DD5MX0C5X2DBBPC;NVX
(:;MX <MX N:6X NVG6XD7X G656MNI;0C DI;6CN65X 56S6@DGB6CNX 6CS<M<DC65X 1VX N:6X *GNDTCX)# X 8IX N:<MX
$IDG6INVX0C5X!XPI96XN:6X <NVX DQC2<@XNDX0GGIDS6X<NX
&;C26I6AVX
3DWE
Nick Klimek
Alhambra Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Aura Uptown / Z-56-20-4
I am a resident of the Pierson Place Historic Neighborhood, and I am writing to express my
support for particular aspects of the proposed rezoning of 201 W. Coolidge Street for the
development of the Aura Uptown multi-family residential project.
Though the height already zoned on this property is a bit out of step with the adjacent housing
to the west, a multifamily development is in line with developments east of the site, and its
proximity to strong pedestrian, bike, and transit connections makes me optimistic that access for
new residents will be multimodal, and not solely auto-oriented.
The proposed project has done a good job orienting toward the canal and maintaining 3rd Ave
as a bike and pedestrian space. I appreciate that the project restricts automobile access off 3rd
Ave. I also encourage the consideration of a traffic circle or other traffic calming device at
Coolidge and 3rd Avenue. My family, including my 3 year-old and 5 year-old, often walk or bike
to/from the canal along 3rd Ave, as do many other neighbors and the general population that
utilizes the 3rd Ave bike/ped corridor. Because Coolidge connects between Central and 7th Ave,
cars using it as a cut through or simply speeding due to the long straight stretch often miss the
stop sign at 3rd Ave, creating a dangerous situation for people (and especially children) walking
and biking along 3rd Ave. I imagine the increased traffic on Coolidge due to this project will only
exacerbate an already unsafe situation at that intersection. Whether this treatment could be
considered as part of the upcoming city-planned 3rd Ave bike improvements for this area or
included in this development, or shared by both, the quickest way to implement that safety
measure would be encouraged by many in our neighborhood. Certainly it should be scheduled
for completion prior to the opening of this development.
The loss of the existing mature shade trees is disappointing. If there is any way to preserve or
relocate any of those trees, it should be attempted. However, I do appreciate the proposed shade
trees along all walkways and the ground floor patios that add visual interest and a break in the
walls. As another neighbor suggested, I would encourage confirmation that tall shade trees have
enough space to grow in the available landscaping space to provide adequate shade across
walkways.
I am sad to lose the big existing green space but I appreciate that the applicant has gone beyond
the minimum requirements for public space. Building management is going to have to work hard
to maintain all sidewalks and green spaces, but the applicant has provided a nice space along
the canal for dogs and people that will be very popular with the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Gina Thomas
102 W Elm St, Phoenix AZ 85013
3DWE
1LFN.OLPHN
$OKDPEUD9LOODJH3ODQQHU
&LW\RI3KRHQL[
3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
:HVW:DVKLQJWRQ6WUHHW
3KRHQL[$=
QLFNNOLPHN#SKRHQL[JRY
Sent via electronic mail
5H $XUD8SWRZQ=
,DPDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&DUQDWLRQQHLJKERUKRRGOLYHDORQJUG$YHQXHMXVWVRXWKRIWKH*UDQG
&DQDO DQG , DP LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH SURSRVHG UH]RQLQJ RI : &RROLGJH 6WUHHW IRU WKH
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKH$XUD8SWRZQPXOWLIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFW
:HQHHGPRUHKRXVLQJLQ0LGWRZQ8SWRZQ3KRHQL[HVSHFLDOO\KRXVLQJWKDWEULQJVLQUHVLGHQWV
ZKRZLOOXVHSXEOLFWUDQVLWDQGVXSSRUWRXUORFDOEXVLQHVVHV$XUD8SWRZQLVDZHOOGHVLJQHG
SURMHFW WKDW LV DSSURSULDWH IRU RXU DUHD JLYHQ WKH H[LVWLQJ PXOWLIDPLO\ ]RQLQJ DGMDFHQW
GHYHORSPHQW DQG SODFHPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH 8SWRZQ 7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG 'HVLJQ 3ODQ , EHOLHYH WKLV
SURMHFWZLOOSURYLGHDWWUDFWLYHZDONDEOHKLJKTXDOLW\PXOWLIDPLO\KRXVLQJDWDVFDOHDQGGHQVLW\
WKDWLVVHQVLWLYHWRWKHVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGFRPPXQLW\,DOVRUHDOO\DSSUHFLDWHWKH
ELF\FOHIRFXVHGDPHQLWLHVUHTXLUHGE\WKHVWLSXODWLRQV,DPFRQFHUQHGWKDWLIWKLVGHYHORSPHQW
GRHVQRWKDSSHQHGZLWKWKHLQFOXGHGVWLSXODWLRQVWKDWDQRWKHUGHYHORSPHQWZLOOMXVWFRPHLQ
ZLWKRXWWKHUHTXLUHGVWLSXODWLRQVWRLPSURYHWKHFDQDOVFDSHDQGWKDWLVOHVVWUDQVLWDQGELNH
RULHQWHG
7KHSURSRVHGFDQDOVFDSHLPSURYHPHQWVDQGDPHQLWLHVZLOOSURYLGHDQHQRUPRXVEHQHILWWRWKH
FRPPXQLW\7KLVLVWKHW\SHRISHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHRULHQWHGGHYHORSPHQWHQYLVLRQHGE\WKH
8SWRZQ7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG'HVLJQ3ODQDQG,XUJHWKH&LW\&RXQFLOWRDSSURYHLW
6LQFHUHO\
(G+HUPHV
:0RQWHFLWR$YH3KRHQL[
3DWE
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Lina Money <linahanni2018@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:37 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
In opposition / z-56-20-4
Dear members of the planning commission,
As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked for
a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.
We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand Canal-
scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density, vehicles,
units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.
Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.
If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for an
R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.
210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density
We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts the
neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/ parking
spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this blind.
Please give us our continuance,
Vincent Bachelot
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
R S <pjharveytrack12@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:39 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
Please submit to planning commission
Dear members of the planning commission,
As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked for
a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.
We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand Canal-
scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density, vehicles,
units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.
Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.
If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for an
R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.
210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density
We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts the
neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/ parking
spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this blind.
Please give us our continuance,
Ron Szematowicz
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Lina Money <linamoney1@mac.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:32 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar; PDD Planning Commission
Subject:
In opposition / z-56-20-4
DearCommissioners,
The proposal before you today purports to be an acceptable compromise brokered between
communityoppositionandTrinsicResidentialGroup.
Thereality,however,istothecontrary.Asof10:30AMthismorning,oppositionhasyettoreceive
arevisedsiteplandetailingtheproposeddevelopment.Wearealsoyettohearbackfromthe
StreetsTransportationDepartmentregardingthetrafficstudysubmittedbythedeveloper.
These procedural failures take backseat, however, to the fundamental shortcomings of this
settlementproposal.
I.
Setbacksarestillinsufficienttoobtainoutrightneighborhoodsupport.Setbacksmustbe
contiguouswithsurroundingdevelopments,viz.Ǧ30’onNorthside.Theofferof20’onthe
West is much appreciated. The additional 10’ along the North side will preserve the
surrounding setbacks and guarantee visibility for pedestrians, bikes and drivers at the
intersectionof3rdAveandCoolidge.
*Itshouldbenotedthatrenderingsthatwerereceivedmyamemberoftheoppositionthis
week showing the buildings redesigndo notappear to include the 20’ as proposed by the
developer.
II.
TheNumberofUnitsmustbefurtherreducedtopreventoverǦdensificationcongestion
and vehicular traffic. R5 allows for 165 units; TRG seeks 210 units; the neighborhood
believesaunitcountof180Ǧ90unitsismoreappropriateinthissettingandisameaningful
increaseaboveR5entitlements.
III.
TheNumberofParkingSlipsremainsinsufficienttoguaranteethatsurroundingproperty
ownersnotincurinjurytotheirpropertyenjoymentandqualityoflife.Parkingisofcourse,
afunctionofthenumberofunitsproposed.
IV.
TheParkingStructureisUnacceptableasitcreatesblighttosurroundingneighbors.The
parking structure must needs be the same height as the residential structure (48’).
Additionally, stipulations must be included which prohibit the possibility of roofǦtop
parking or the installation of lighting assemblies atop the parking structure. This is to
prevent light pollution and preserve the aesthetic integrity for members of the public
utilizingthecanalscapeforrecreation.
V.
Thefailuretoarriveatanacceptablearrangementcomesasagreatdisappointmenttothe
neighborhood.APUD,ifcreatedaccordingtotheprocessstipulatedbythePUDmanual,
guarantees thecommunitymultiple,faceǦtoǦfacemeetingswith the developer to broker
2
concessioninanorderlyandmeaningfulway.Wemetwiththedeveloperinadarkparking
lot the night before the city council meeting in a most unorthodox and surely exǦparte
fashionthatleftmeilltomystomach.Thiscannotbeallowedtobecomeapermissibleway
bywhichthecityallowscontroversialdevelopmentcasestoberesolved.IfPPDbelievesthat
aPUDistheappropriatevehicletobrokerasettlement,thenthePUDmustgothroughthe
normal,prescribedPUDprocess.
Becausewhatyouseebeforeyoutodayisnotacceptabletoopposition,beitknownthat
oppositionhassubmittedarequestforcontinuance.Webelievethatarrivingatanacceptable
compromiseisstillpossibleandwouldlikethecommissiontosupporttheneighborhoodin
bringingTRGtothetableinameaningfulway.IfthisisdeniedandthePUDissubsequently
recommendedtotheCityCouncilwithouttheinclusionofstipulationsamelioratingtheabove
referencedconcerns,oppositionintendstofurtherappeal.
Withrespect,
LinaMoney
TO: PPD
FROM: DILLON HALL
THURSDAY, MAY 6TH, 2021
Dear Commissioners,
The proposal before you today purports to be an acceptable compromise brokered between community
opposition and Trinsic Residential Group.
The reality, however, is to the contrary. As of 10:30AM this morning, opposition has yet to receive a
revised site plan detailing the proposed development. We are also yet to hear back from the Streets
Transportation Department regarding the traffic study submitted by the developer.
These procedural failures take backseat, however, to the fundamental shortcomings of this settlement
proposal.
I.
Setbacks are still insufficient to obtain outright neighborhood support. Set backs must be contiguous
with surrounding developments, viz.- 30’ on North side. The offer of 20’ on the West is much
appreciated. The additional 10’ along the North side will preserve the surrounding setbacks and
guarantee visibility for pedestrians, bikes and drivers at the intersection of 3rd Ave and Coolidge.
*It should be noted that renderings that were received my a member of the opposition this week showing the buildings
redesign do not appear to include the 20’ as proposed by the developer.
II.
The Number of Units must be further reduced to prevent over-densification congestion and vehicular
traffic. R5 allows for 165 units; TRG seeks 210 units; the neighborhood believes a unit count of
180-90 units is more appropriate in this setting and is a meaningful increase above R5 entitlements.
III. The Number of Parking Slipsremains insufficient to guarantee that surrounding property owners not
incur injury to their property enjoyment and quality of life. Parking is of course, a function of the
number of units proposed.
IV. The Parking Structure is Unacceptable as it creates blight to surrounding neighbors. The parking
structure must needs be the same height as the residential structure (48’). Additionally, stipulations
must be included which prohibit the possibility of roof-top parking or the installation of lighting
assemblies atop the parking structure. This is to prevent light pollution and preserve the aesthetic
integrity for members of the public utilizing the canalscape for recreation.
V.
The failure to arrive at an acceptable arrangement comes as a great disappointment to the
neighborhood. A PUD, if created according to the process stipulated by the PUD manual, guarantees
the community multiple, face-to-face meetings with the developer to broker concession in an orderly
and meaningful way. We met with the developer in a dark parking lot the night before the city council
meeting in a most unorthodox and surely ex-parte fashion that left me ill to my stomach. This can not
be allowed to become a permissible way by which the city allows controversial development cases to
be resolved. If PPD believes that a PUD is the appropriate vehicle to broker a settlement, then the
PUD must go through the normal, prescribed PUD process.
Because what you see before you today is not acceptable to opposition, be it known that opposition has
submitted a requested for continuance. We believe that arriving at an acceptable compromise is still
possible and would like the commission to support the neighborhood in bringing TRG to the table in a
meaningful way. If this is denied and the PUD is subsequently recommended to the City Council without
the inclusion of stipulations ameliorating the above referenced concerns, opposition intends to further
appeal.
Respectfully,
Dillon Hall
324 W. Minnezona Ave.
PHX, AZ 85013
Rcvd.5/5/2021
Towhomitmayconcern,
We,theneighborhood,requestacontinuanceforcase56Ͳ20Ͳ4togoontothenextplanning
commissionmeeting.
Vitalinformationhasnotbeenreceivedorithasnotbeenreceivedwithsufficienttimeto
review.WereceivedimagesfromMr.Gosselinktoday5Ͳ4astotheredesignhoweveritdoes
notlooklikeitincorporatedthe20footsetbacks.Weneedtoseetheofficialnewsiteplan
whichwehavenotseenyet.Additionallywealsohavenotreceivedaconfirmationwhether
thetrafficstudysubmittedonApril8thwasapprovedordeniedbythestreettransportation
department.
ThishasbeenremandedfromCityCouncilanddidnotgothroughthenormalPUDprocess
includingtheAlhambracommittee.Becauseofthis,wedidnothavetheusualopportunityto
reviewsiteplansanddocuments.Wehavenotaskedforasinglecontinuanceuptothispoint.
Wefeelitistheutmostimportancetodosoasit’sacriticaltime.
Thankyou
Sincerely
RonSzematowicz
1
Racelle Escolar
From:
Kenny W <kennywaters602@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:07 AM
To:
Racelle Escolar
Subject:
Please Forward to all 9 Planning Commissioners re Agenda Item #15 (May 6th)
Re:AgendaItem#15"AuraUptown"(DonorNetwork3.29GrossAcreSite)
May6th,Thursday6pmVIRTUALWebexPlanningCommMeeting
PiersonPlaceHistoricDistrict
2Videosegments
1AerialPhoto
Park:0.44Acre
OldGrowthTrees:(25alongstreets&canal)
HiRacelle,
Canyoupleaseforwardthisemailasapwithitstworelevantvideolinks(toall9PlanningCommissioners)ofChannel3
News'"PhoenixCommunityFightstoKeepNeighborhoodPark"coverageretheproposedAuraUptownproject@SEC
of3rdAve&Coolidge,
...alongwiththevideolinkofCityCouncil's92Ͳminutehearingofthiscasethatproduced43minutesofstrong
neighborhoodoppositioncomments,with21neighborsspeakingagainstͲjustatipoftheiceberg.
DonorNetworkofficewasa.44acreparkandMͲF9Ͳ5greatestneighborEVER.
ThePiersonPlaceneighborhoodreallydidn'tawakentothislossofpark&neighborͲtobereplacedbyyetanother
"aggregating"compounding24/7trafficnightmarecomingintothedeepinteriorofourneighborhood(NOarterial
streets)tillAFTERthePlanningCommissionvotedonit.TheCityCouncilfoundthatneighborhood"awakening"outthe
hardwayͲ92minutesworth.Thus,it'sbackforhopefullymuchdifferentPCreconsiderationand2ndthoughts...this
timearound.
Thankyou!
KenWaters
PiersonPlace,27Ͳyrresident
Channel3Newsclip(97secondsegment)thatairedMarch2,2021:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHI0aGl7Fk[youtube.com]
April7thCityCouncilHearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaTwv7GpIi4&t=12254s[youtube.com]
(Agendaitem#114,AuraUptownprojectthatlasted1hr,32mins):
AgendaItemStartedatthe3:02:05mark
PublicCommentsstartedatthe3:23:40mark
PublicCommentsendedatthe4:11:00mark
ItemEndedatthe4:34:00mark
92Minutestotal
2
<iframewidth="560"height="315"src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oaTwv7GpIi4?start=12220[youtube.com]"
title="YouTubevideoplayer"frameborder="0"allow="accelerometer;autoplay;clipboardͲwrite;encryptedͲmedia;
gyroscope;pictureͲinͲpicture"allowfullscreen></iframe>
1
ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲForwardedmessageͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ
From:DIANELMIHALSKY<dmihalsky@msn.com>
Date:Sun,Feb28,2021at5:42PM
Subject:ZͲ56Ͳ20Ͳ4
To:council.district.4@phoenix.gov<council.district.4@phoenix.gov>
Cc:mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov<mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov>,council.district.1@phoenix.gov
<council.district.1@phoenix.gov>,council.district.2@phoenix.gov<council.district.2@phoenix.gov>,
council.district.3@phoenix.gov<council.district.3@phoenix.gov>,council.district.5@phoenix.gov
<council.district.5@phoenix.gov>,council.district.6@phoenix.gov<council.district.6@phoenix.gov>,
council.district.7@phoenix.gov<council.district.7@phoenix.gov>,council.district.8@phoenix.gov
<council.district.8@phoenix.gov>
CouncilpersonPastor:
0\QDPHLV'LDQH0LKDOVN\,OLYHDW:&DPSEHOO$YHLQWKH<DSOH3DUNKLVWRULFQHLJKERUKRRGLQ
PLGWRZQ3KRHQL[,ERXJKWP\KRXVHLQ DQGKDYHOLYHGKHUHVLQFHWKDWWLPH
)RUVHYHUDO\HDUV,VDWRQWKH(QFDQWR9LOODJH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHH7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWRQ
WKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI1UG$YHDQG:&RROLGJH6W=LVWKHILUVWSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
LQWKHQHLJKERUKRRGWKDW,KDYHHYHURSSRVHG
7KHVLWHLVORFDWHGDORQJWKH*UDQG&DQDORQWKHVRXWKDQGWKH6RQRUDQELNHZD\RQWKHZHVWLQWKH
PLGGOHRIWZRLUULJDWHGKLVWRULFQHLJKERUKRRGV7KLVLVDUHODWLYHO\VPDOOVLWHEHWZHHQDFUHV
VDOHDGYHUWLVHPHQW DFUHV &RXQW\$VVHVVRU¶VZHEVLWH DQG DFUHV 7ULQVLF¶VVXEPLVVLRQWR
&LW\VWDII ,WSUHVHQWO\KDVDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\¶ZLGHUHWHQWLRQEDVLQDORQJWKHELNHZD\ZLWKDURZRI
PDWXUHROLYHWUHHV1HLJKERUVPHHWHDFKRWKHUDQGZDONZLWKWKHLUFKLOGUHQDQGGRJVLQWKH
VKDGHGJUHHQDUHDRQWKLVXQLTXHSURSHUW\
$FFRUGLQJWRWKHVWDIIUHSRUW7ULQVLFSODQVWREXLOGDXQLWVWRU\ZLWKPH]]DQLQH³OX[XU\
DSDUWPHQW´ZLWKRQO\¶VHWEDFNVRQZKLFKLWKDVSURPLVHGWRSODQW´FDOLSHUVKDGHWUHHV¶RQ
FHQWHUEHWZHHQWKHPLQLPXP¶ZLGHVLGHZDONDQGEXLOGLQJ%DVHGRQRYHU\HDUVJDUGHQLQJRQDQ
LUULJDWHGORWWKHVHWUHHVZLOOQHYHUSURYLGHWKHFRROQHVVDQGVKDGHWKDWWKHROLYHWUHHVSURYLGHLIWKH\
VXUYLYHDWDOOLQWKHLQFUHDVHGKHDWLVODQGWKDWWKLVSURMHFWZLOOFDXVH
%HFDXVHWKHSDUFHOLVRQDIORRGKD]DUGDUHDRQWKHQRUWKVLGHRI*UDQG&DQDO7ULQVLFKDVSURPLVHG
WRVKRZWKDWLWKDVFRPSOLHGZLWK)(0$UHJXODWLRQVWRSURWHFWWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWQRW
VXUURXQGLQJVWUHHWVRUSURSHUWLHV$OWKRXJKWKHUHZDVVRPHPHQWLRQDWWKH$OKDPEUD9LOODJH
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHHPHHWLQJWKDWWKH&LW\HQJLQHHUFRQVLGHUHG7ULQVLF¶VUHPRYDORIWKHUHWHQWLRQ
EDVLQRQQHLJKERULQJVWUHHWVDQGSURSHUWLHVQRUHSRUWLVPHQWLRQHGLQWKHVWDIIUHSRUW:HGRQ¶WNQRZ
ZKHWKHUWKH&LW\FRQVLGHUHGWKHLPSDFWRIWKHNLQGRI\HDUUDLQRUIORRGWKDWKDVEHHQEHFRPH
PRUHFRPPRQLQ3KRHQL[
7KHVWDIIUHSRUWGRHVQRWPHQWLRQWKDW7ULQVLFZLOOWDNHDQ\PHDVXUHVWRPLWLJDWHWKHLQFUHDVHGWUDIILF
DQGSDUNLQJWKDWWKLVSURMHFWZLOOFDXVHRQQDUURZVWUHHWVLQWKHPLGGOHRIDUHVLGHQWLDO
QHLJKERUKRRG7ULQVLFKDVVXJJHVWHGWKDWLISDUNLQJEHFRPHVDSUREOHPLWPLJKWUHTXLUHSHUPLWVIRU
2
WKHVRXWKVLGHRI&RROLGJHLQIURQWRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWEXWQRWDFURVVWKHVWUHHWZKHUHVLQJOHIDPLO\
KRPHVDUHORFDWHG7KHRQO\FRQFHVVLRQWKDW7ULQVLFKDVPDGHWRWKHVLWHRIWKHSODQRQWKHFDQDO
UHTXLUHVVKDGHGRSHQVSDFHDQGLQVWDOODWLRQRIELF\FOHSDUNLQJIRUUHVLGHQWVDQGJXHVWVDQGDSXEOLFO\
DFFHVVLEOHELF\FOHUHSDLUVWDWLRQVXEMHFWWR653¶VDSSURYDORIWKHVHXVHVRILWVULJKWRIZD\1RWRQO\
LV7ULQVLFQRWXVLQJLWVRZQSURSHUW\IRUWKHVHIHDWXUHVWKDWLWEUDJVZLOOEULQJDVLJQLILFDQWEHQHILWWRWKH
&LW\EXWLWKDVQRWERWKHUHGWRDVFHUWDLQZKHWKHULWFDQDFWXDOO\FRQVWUXFWWKHVHLPSURYHPHQWV
7KHSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWLVDFRRNLHFXWWHUUHSOLFDWLRQRIWKHQXPHURXVPLGULVHEORFNVWKDWVHHPWR
KDYHVSURXWHGRQODUJHSDUFHOVRQWKHDUWHULDOVWUHHWVVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGV7KHVHGHQVHPLG
ULVHGHYHORSPHQWVDUHDSSURSULDWHIRUODUJHSDUFHOVRQDUWHULDOVWUHHWVRQWKHHGJHRIH[LVWLQJ
QHLJKERUKRRGVQRWWKLVVPDOOXQLTXHSURSHUW\ORFDWHGEHWZHHQWZRWKULYLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\
QHLJKERUKRRGV
,VXSSRUWWKH&LW\¶VJRDORIDFKLHYLQJPRUHGHQVLW\LQP\PLGWRZQQHLJKERUKRRG%XW,RSSRVHWKLV
LOOFRQFHLYHGWKLUGUDWHSURMHFWEHFDXVH,WKLQNWKH&LW\FDQGREHWWHUE\WKHUHVLGHQWVZKRKDYH
KHOSHGPDNHWKLVDUHDVRGHVLUDEOH,IWKH&LW\DSSURYHV7ULQVLF¶VSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWRQWKLV
VPDOOXQLTXHSDUFHOLWZLOOSODFHDGHYHORSHU¶VVKRUWWHUPSURILWVRYHUORQJWHUPYDOXHIRUWKH&LW\DQG
LWVORQJWHUPUHVLGHQWV,EHJ\RXWRXVH\RXUVRXQGGLVFUHWLRQWRGHQ\LQJWKH]RQLQJFKDQJHVWKDW
7ULQVLFUHTXHVWV
DianeMihalsky
cc:MayorGallegoandCouncilpersonsWilliams,Waring,Stark,Guardado,DiCiccio,Nowakowski,andGarcia
Dear Councilperson Pastor,
I am a resident & property owner in Yaple Park Historic Neighborhood, and I write to
express my strongest disapproval of Rezoning Case No: Z-56-20-4.
Z-56-20-4 seeks to permit the construction of a 4 + story mid-rise on the Southeast corner
of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street in Midtown Phoenix (the former offices of the Donor
Network of AZ at 201 W. Coolidge). The complex will have a minimum of 218 units (275 beds),
will be set a mere 10 feet back from the street, and effectively will blanket the entire 2.6
acre parcel with a 60 foot structure that will tower over existing homes in every direction.
That the proposed development will damage the surrounding area is the widely-held and
affirmed belief of surrounding homeowners, residents, and private businesses.
I have joined the more than one hundred property owners and residents of the surrounding
neighborhoods in signing petitions against Z-56-20-4 to make clear our opposition to the
proposed changes. These are families and futures belonging to your constituents—of which
I am only one—and I respectfully implore you to consider voting against the rezoning
request.
The Alhambra Village Planning Committee and City of Phoenix Planning Committee have
both voted in favor of this zoning change, thus allowing for the proposed development to
proceed. Present at both meetings, however, were a large contingent of community members
—all of whom stood in opposition—and all of whom were prevented from meaningful
participation in either public process.
These proceedings were contrary to our democratic principles, and were most especially
egregious as we made repeated attempts to voice our concerns and were given no reasonable
accommodation. The truth is that the surrounding residents are the individuals who will
suffer irreversible life changes, and so ought to have been guaranteed a meaningfulrole in
the decision making process. The process, thus far, has not afforded any role to them.
Like many of my neighbors, I am concerned that the proposed building will diminish
property values within the two adjacent historic neighborhoods and will create an unsafe
1
and dangerous traffic environment in an area in which ingress and egress are already
highly restricted. This is compounded by the fact that there will be insufficient parking to
accommodate the total number of residents, guests and service providers to the building. The
surrounding infrastructure of the neighborhood is not such that it can accommodate an
expected increase to vehicular activity without systemic improvements such as sidewalks—
none of which are part of the proposed development.
Congestion is further compounded by the fact that Pierson Place is bordered on two sides
by the Light Rail and on a third by the Grand Canal, leaving residents (1) No interior South-
Bound Exits, (2) a single Northern exit at Camelback and 3rd Avenue, and (3) a single Eastern
exit at the light on Highland and Central Avenue to head North. This last intersection is
already utilized by, as a necessity, the more than 3,500 students attending St. Francis Xavier
School, Brophy College Preparatory, Xavier College Preparatory and the clergy of the Parish
grounds .
2
Yaple Park, which is 108 residences 103 of which are single-family-homes & Pierson Place, which is composed of more than 150 residences, 85%
1
of which are single-family-homes.
coming and going both at peak traffic hours and throughout the day.
2
Many neighbors have expressed their concerns as ADA residents and as parents of young
children who will now be forced to compete with car traffic on the surface streets. Our
neighborhoods have very, very few sidewalks and we fear losing our pedestrian culture to
densification. Our ability to park in front of our own homes will also be compromised. The
stress on existing utilities is an additional concern, as this is a neighborhood built up in the
early 1930’s then again in the post-war 40’s-60’s.
Our sewer lines have been failing for a decade and effectively doubling demand on them
immediately will likely greatly accelerate the failure of this system—which is now at the end of
its projected life cycle, according to the city’s own data. This is yet another major cost to be
born by existing property owners and is a financial burden that gives sole accommodation to
the development in-question. If the City approves the development, it will shift the cost of
supporting the development onto existing individual property owners.
Arguably just as important is our belief that this development will decrease our property
enjoyment, stifle our historical identity, and gravely undermine the independence of our
community to influence—much less chart—our own futures.
Forcing this drastic and arguably inappropriate development upon existing property owners
will cause general injury to our financial positions and social fabric. Of specific concern are
traffic/parking hazards, the degree of density relative to surrounding properties and—frankly
—the aesthetically vacuous character of the proposed building. This area and this site in
particular deserves something better and ought to be developed in such a way as to amplify
the special nature of the surrounding historic neighborhoods.
This is a large development smack-dab in the middle of two traditional, working-class
residential neighborhoods that are on their way up. This development brings our community
nothing of tangible value and, in fact, seriously undermines our expectation as property
owners to continue along an upward trajectory that has proven to be an asset to the city, and
will rationally be expected to continue. This development should be curtailed to benefit and
preserve the greater midtown area in the short-term, mid-term and long-term futures as
sought-after historic residential areas.
Put frankly, this development will transfer the hard-earned wealth generated by individual
homeowners and families toa Wall Street Corporation. This is not a case of xenophobia or of
anti-progressivism; this is a case of decades of hard working, mortgage paying and free-
holding individuals and families who have struggled to ensure that these communities would
not only survive but would flourish seeking to preserve what we have built. Now we are trying
to avoid collision with a powerful single interest, the impact of which we will likely not survive
—at least not recognizably—at the onset of our real prosperity.
I could go on and on, but I think I've expressed enough of your constituents' feelings in this
matter to inform you of our committed sentiment that this development should not go ahead.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please keep up the good work, Councilperson
Pastor!
Sincerely,
Dillon Hall
324 West Minnezona
Phoenix, Arizona, 85013
Dillon.Hall.MTAZ@gmail.com
602.758.2241
TheUrbanWalkableCodeisinappropriateforthesiteat3rdAve&CoolidgeSt.Thissiteisaway
fromallarterialroadsandisintheheartofahistoricneighborhoodthatiscutofftothesouth
bythecanal,haslimitedaccesstotheeastandthenorthbecauseofthelightrail,andcontends
withsuicidelaneson7thAvetothewest.Addingthismuchtrafficalongthe3rdAvebikepath
andwithinthisneighborhoodisbadforsafetyandoverallcitydevelopment.Thisdevelopment
inthisareaisinconsistentwiththeverypremiseofawalkablecode.
TrinsicDevelopmentgrouphasappliedforazoningchangefromahistoricR3/R5toaWUT5:5
whichisthesamezoningastheNWcornerofIndianSchoolandCentralAve.
AT5:5ischaracterizedby“abroadmixofbuildingsthatintegrateretail,offices,liveͲworkand
residential”.1Theyaveragein56to100feetinheight.Thereisnothingclosetothisheightany
wherenearthisdevelopmentorwithinthehistoricneighborhood,awayfromarterialroads.
Themajorityofthebuildingsinthesurroundingareaaresinglefamilyhomesonasinglefloor
andsometwostoryresidentialbuildings.TheaverageheightintheareaisLESSthan30feet,
somewherebetweenoneandtwostoryresidential.
AT5:2andT5:3isthenextstepdownandwestillarenotanywherenearitscharacterization.
“AlowintensitymixedusefabriccharacterizedbyaSMALLMAINSTREETSCALECOMMERCIAL
AREAS,adaptivereuseofsingleͲfamilyhomestoretail,officeusesanddiningestablishments
andmixeduseresidentialdevelopmentsincorporatingaBROADmixoffrontagetypes
averaging30to48feetinheight.”2Allthe“mainstreetcommercial”streetsarearterialroads.
3RdAveiscompletelyresidentialandwehavenoretailordiningawayfromarterialroads.
Againwearebetweenoneandtwostorieswiththemajorityoftheareaahistoriconestory
neighborhood.Wearewellbelowtheaverageheightof30Ͳ48’.
EventheT4:2andT4:3discussanaverageof30Ͳ40feetinheight.Wedonothaveclosetothis
averageeither.
Ihavebeenthroughmuchofthe“VisonandMasterPlan”Uptownsectioncitypamphletthat
Trinsichasusedtotoutthiszoningchangetoplanningcommissionsandtheneighborhoodand
itclearlystates“Theplanservesasaguideandisnotregulatory.Additionaloutreachand
researchonunderlyingentitlementsandappropriatenessofspecificpropertieswillbe
conductedduringtherezoningprocess3”(page77uptownsection).Ihavefoundplentyof
mapswithinthispamphletthatshowthispropertyoutsidetheappropriatenessofaWUcode
zone.
1https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/1302
2https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/1302
3https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/ReinventPHX%20UPTOWN%20TOD%20Policy%20Plan%2011X1
7.pdfpage77
ZĐǀĚϯͬ Ϯϰͬ ϮϬϮϭ
ScreenshotfromCityofPhoenixmunicipalcodessection1302.
ScreenshotfromCityofPhoenixwebsiteUrbanWalkableCodeHandout
Note:ThepropertyinquestionisNOTpartoftheurbanwalkablecode.Thesearenot
supposedtobetakenverbatim.
AT5:5isthetypeofzoningthatTWOarterialroadsjustreceivedontheNorthwestcornerof
IndianSchoolandCentralAve.
WeareRESIDENTIAL.AlookatbusinessesviaGooglemaps.Notetheyareallwithinonehouse
ofarterialroads.NodiningnoretailawayfromCentralor7thAve.3RdAveisstrictlyresidential.
WUT5:5IndianSchoolandCentralAve
Googlemapsshowsnobusinessesawayfromarterialroads,nodiningandnoretail
Nobusinesseson3rdAveatall
Theneighborhoodsurroundingthepropertytothewestandtothenorth.Note:awayfrom
arterialroads.
Oksane’spropertyandMonica’shousetothenorth
ZĐǀĚϯͬ Ϯϰͬ ϮϬϮϭ
AdamandPaula’slookingwestfromthedevelopment.Adaminparticularisveryconcerned
withtheproposedheightandtheinvasionofprivacyintohisyard.
LookingwestonthesouthsideofHazelwood.KimandKaren’shouses.
TeresaandMonica’shousedirectlyacrossthestreettothenorthofthedevelopment.
Monica’shousewithTeresa’snextdoortothenorthoftheproperty.
Trafficandparkingconcerns.
WehaveheardfromJasonMorristhatthisdevelopmentwillbethesametrafficasa34,000sq
ftofficecomplexthathada108parkingspaces.Thisproposedbuildingisgoingclosetothe
curbon115,000sqftblockandwillbe4stories.At218unitswith46studios,116one
bedroomsand56twobedroomthatgivesus274bedswithonly303parkingspots.Thatis1.1
parkingspotsperbed.Thatleaves29spacesforotherhalvesofcouplesandguests.Thisisnot
enoughparking.
Thisneighborhoodiscutofftothesouthbythecanal,haslimitedaccesstothenorthandeast
bythelightrailandcontendswithsuicidelanestothewest.3rdAveisabikepathandatraffic
increasewillreducesafety.Aparkingincreasewillreducevisibility.
Theparkinggaragewithitssingleentranceandexitisgoingtobetowardtheeastofthe
propertytoencouragecarstoheadtowardCentralAve.Centralisrightturnonlyheading
south.
108parkingspacesvs303parkingspaces….34,387Sqfeetof2storybuildingvs
115,133sqfootlotsizewhichwillbemostly4storybuilding
ZĐǀĚϯͬ Ϯϰͬ ϮϬϮϭ
CentralAveisrightturnonlyfromCoolidgeSt
SouthboundOnly
Comingbackintotheneighborhood
Wehavenotseenanappropriatedrainageplanforthesurroundingareaorthedevelopment’s
impactondrainage.ThefollowingphotosweretakenbyKarenMcCaslandafteroneofour
monsoonsattheproperty.Thisareaisafloodplain.Theprojectwillbebuiltonthisarea.
ZĐǀĚϯͬ Ϯϰͬ ϮϬϮϭ
Itookthisphotooftheproperty.
0DULFRSD&RXQW\*,2YDULRXV0DULFRSD&RXQW\$VVHVVRU
V2IILFH
O
$0
0DS
Dillon Hall
324 West Minnezona Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85013
March 29, 2021
Phoenix City Council
c/o
Racelle Escolar, Planner III
PDD, Planning Division
(602) 534-2864
Re:
Analysis of WU Code as it related to the Council’s consideration of
Z-56-20-4
Dear Councilperson Pastor,
This letter is submitted to clarify and expound upon the analysis
previously submitted by Ron Szmatowicz, the appellant in Case Z-56-20-4, and to
provide additional authorities that are relevant to Trinsic Residential Group’s
(“Trinsic’s”) application to rezone approximately 3 acres at the southeast corner
of N. 3rd Ave. and W. Coolidge St. (“subject site”) from multifamily R-3 and R-5 to
Walkable Urban Code (“WU Code”) Transect 5:5. The application must be
denied because (1) The subject property is not located within the area
circumscribed by City’s current Transportation Overlay District (“TOD”) or
Master Plan/Walkable Urban Code (“Master Plan”) and (2) Even if the site were
located in the TOD or an area that is subject to the WU Code, the proposed
development’s scale and density are not consistent with the surrounding 1- and
2-story historic structures and setbacks of surrounding properties.
1. The City should deny Trinsic’s application under the WU
Code because the subject site was excluded from the City’s
most recent iterations of the TOD and Master Plan.
When the City constructed the light rail, it designated the area on either
side of the light rail route as the TOD, which was intended for higher density
development to promote ridership on the light rail. In 2015, Chapter 13 was
added to the City Code to create a Walkable Urban Code “to implement the
vision and policies of the [TOD] Policy Plans” for certain neighborhoods,
1
including Uptown, where the subject site is located, and to “encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations . . . .” Code
Section 1301(B). A map appended to the 2015 version of Chapter 13 showed
the TOD extending from N. 3rd Ave. to N. 3rd St. along N. Central Ave. in the
Uptown Transect District, between Indian School and Camelback Rds. The map
also included the disclaimer: “The City Clerk’s Office has the official version of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Users should contact the City Clerk’s Office for
ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.”
The Staff Report for Z-56-20-4 stated that Trinsic’s plan would serve the
goals of the TOD and WU Code. See Staff Report at 7-8, Background Items Nos.
5 and 6. Since 2015, however, the City has refined the crude map appended to
Chapter 13 to exclude certain sites, including the subject site, from the TOD. See
Exhibit 1 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)).
Similarly, the City’s current Master Plan excludes the subject site from the Master
Plan. See Exhibits 2, 3, 4 (Master Plan, Uptown-TOD Policy Plan and Walkable
Urban Code fo the Uptown District).
Developers should not be allowed unilaterally to set the course of the
City’s development against the City’s plan to preserve certain areas for other
uses, to the detriment of well-established residential neighborhoods. Because the
subject site is not included in the current TOD or Walkable Urban Code area,
the City should deny Trinsic’s application to rezone the site to WU Code T5:5.
2. The City should deny Trinsic’s application because the
proposed development’s scale and density are not consistent
with the surrounding 1- and 2-story historic structures and
setbacks of surrounding properties.
Trinsic plans to construct a 4-story + mezzanine, 218-unit luxury
apartment complex with only a 10’ setback from N. 3rd Ave. and W. Coolidge,
which are small local streets. The WU Code provides for a “[m]inimum ten-foot
landscape setback . . . .” Section 1303(A)(2)(a).
The Staff Report for Z-56-20-4 describes the neighborhoods surrounding
the proposed development, in relevant part as follows:
2
East: Immediately east of the subject site is a
multifamily complex which is zoned R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District). . . . [T]he existing buildings do
not exceed three stories in height.
West: West of the subject site across 3rd Avenue are
residential structures of a single-story and
single-family detached character. . . .
North: North of the subject site across Coolidge
Street are various residential structures
ranging from a single-family detached
character to small apartment complex, with
neither type exceeding two stories. . . .
South (the Grand Canal): South of the subject site is
the Grand Canal . . . .
Staff Report at 6 (emphasis added). The Report notes that the subject site is
located “within one-quarter mile from two light rail stations,” not adjacent to the
light rail corridor. See id. at 8.
The WU Code’s transect districts “vary by the level and intensity of their
physical and social character, providing immersive contexts from less intense to
more intense urban development.” Section 1302(A). The T5:5 Transect district,
which designation Trinsic seeks for the parcel, as “[a] medium-high intensity
mixed-use fabric characterized by a broad mix of buildings that
integrate retail, offices, live-work and residential units adjacent to
the Light Rail Corridor, averaging 56 to 100 feet in height.” Section
1302(A)(4) (emphasis added). According to the Staff Report, the subject site is
surrounded on two sides by predominantly one-story single-family dwellings, a
small two-story apartment complex, and, to the east, a three-story apartment
complex, averaging, at most, 15 to 35 feet in height. The light rail corridor is at
least three blocks away. The subject site does not meet Code requirements for
WU Code T5:5.
Chapter 13 does recognize the T3-2 Transect District as “[l]ow-intensity
residential fabric characterized primarily by single-family homes and duplexes in
relatively large lots with deep setbacks.” Section 1302(A)(1). Although this
3
characterization may fit the neighborhood surrounding the subject site, Trinsic
has not requested this zoning classification. Moreover, as noted above, Trinsic’s
proposed Aura Uptown project has only 10’ setbacks from the local streets on
which it is located. The 3-story apartment complex on the east has at least 30’
setbacks; the setbacks for the single-family detached structures and small
apartment complexes surrounding the proposed development have at least 25’ to
40’ setbacks. Although Chapter 13 provides that “[f]rontage setbacks maybe
expanded . . . by 20 percent in order to match adjacent frontage setbacks,”
Section 1304(B)(1), that would only bring the proposed development’s setbacks
to 12’. The proposed development would stick out like a sore thumb from
adjacent properties.
Conclusion
We do not oppose development in areas that that been designated as the
TOD or Walkable Urban Code along the arterial streets on the edges of the
Pierson Place and Carnation residential neighborhoods. But Trinsic application
1
in Z-56-20-4 must be denied because (1) The subject property is not located
within the area circumscribed by City’s current TOD or Master Plan and (2) Even
if the site were located in the TOD or an area located in an area that is subject
to the WU Code, the proposed development is not consistent with the
surrounding 1- and 2-story historic structures and setbacks of surrounding
properties.
Respectfully,
Dillon Hall
Ron Szmatowicz
See SURMHFWDWVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI1UG$YHDQG:,QGLDQ6FKRRO5G KHLJKW
QXPEHURIWRZHUV RWKHUSURMHFWV"
4
5 5
EXHIBIT
I
6 6
7 7
EXHIBIT
II
8
Th e Walkable Urban Code plan guides rezoning to the new WU Code. Th e plan identifi es the rezoning locations and intensity
level Transect sub-districts that are consistent with the Vision and Master Plan.
Th e plan serves as policy guidance and is not regulatory. Additional outreach and research on underlying entitlements and
appropriateness of specifi c properties will be conducted during the rezoning process.
Th e Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework document identifi es the Placetype for certain light-rail stops within
the District.
Like the Conceptual Master Plan, the Placetype models inform the proper scale and character of the Districts, which is then
encoded in the Regulating Plan.
0DMRU8UEDQ&HQWHU
(QWHUWDLQPHQW'HVWLQDWLRQ
5HWDLO'HVWLQDWLRQ
0LG5LVH/LYLQJ
2IÀFH(PSOR\PHQW
0LG5LVH
$SDUWPHQW
7RZQKRXVH
5RZKRXVH
0LG5LVH2IÀFH +RWHO
8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW
UHWDLOIRRWSULQW,QFHQWLYH VTIW
5HJLRQDO'HVWLQDWLRQ
+LJK5HJLRQDO
$FFHVVLELOLW\
0HGLXP+LJK
,QWHQVLW\
6WRULHV
,QFHQWLYH
6WRULHV
0LQRU8UEDQ&HQWHU
%DODQFHG&RPPHUFLDO
5HVLGHQWLDO
5HWDLO'HVWLQDWLRQ
(QWHUWDLQPHQW'HVWLQDWLRQ
6RPH(PSOR\PHQW
0LG5LVH
$SDUWPHQW
7RZQKRXVH
5RZKRXVH
/LYH:RUN
/RZ5LVH2IÀFH
8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW
UHWDLOIRRWSULQW,QFHQWLYH VTIW
6XE5HJLRQDO
'HVWLQDWLRQ
0HGLXP5HJLRQDO
$FFHVVLELOLW\
0HGLXP/RZ
,QWHQVLW\
6WRULHV
,QFHQWLYH
6WRULHV
+LVWRULF1HLJKERUKRRG
&HQWHU
3ULPDULO\5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRGVHUYLQJUHWDLO
/LPLWHGHPSOR\PHQW
$SDUWPHQW
7RZQ5RZ+RPH
/LYH:RUN
RUXQLW
6LQJOH8QLW
/RZ5LVHRIÀFH
8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW
UHWDLOIRRWSULQW
1HLJKERUKRRG
'HVWLQDWLRQ
/HVV5HJLRQDO
$FFHVVLELOLW\
/RZ,QWHQVLW\
6WRULHV
,QFHQWLYH
6WRULHV
0HGLXP8UEDQ&HQWHU
%DODQFHG&RPPHUFLDO
5HVLGHQWLDO
5HWDLO'HVWLQDWLRQ
(QWHUWDLQPHQW'HVWLQDWLRQ
6RPH(PSOR\PHQW
0LG5LVH
$SDUWPHQW
7RZQKRXVH
5RZKRXVH
/LYH:RUN
/RZ5LVH2IÀFH
8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW
UHWDLOIRRWSULQW,QFHQWLYH VTIW
6XE5HJLRQDO
'HVWLQDWLRQ
0HGLXP5HJLRQDO
$FFHVVLELOLW\
0HGLXP
,QWHQVLW\
6WRULHV
,QFHQWLYH
6WRULHV
+LVWRULF1HLJKERUKRRG
&HQWHU
3ULPDULO\5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRGVHUYLQJUHWDLO
/LPLWHGHPSOR\PHQW
$SDUWPHQW
7RZQ5RZ+RPH
/LYH:RUN
RUXQLW
6LQJOH8QLW
/RZ5LVHRIÀFH
8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW
UHWDLOIRRWSULQW
1HLJKERUKRRG
'HVWLQDWLRQ
/HVV5HJLRQDO
$FFHVVLELOLW\
/RZ,QWHQVLW\
6WRULHV
,QFHQWLYH
6WRULHV
9 9
EXHIBIT
III
10
! $ $
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
" #
! !
#
!!
!
! #
#
!#
!#
!#
SUBJECT PROPERTY
From:
DIANE L MIHALSKY
To:
Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Nick Klimek
Subject:
Z-56-20-4 (scheduled for 4/7 at 2:30 p.m., item 114)
Date:
Monday, April 5, 2021 10:16:08 AM
0\QDPHLV'LDQH0LKDOVN\,KDYHOLYHGDW:&DPSEHOO$YHDFURVVWKHFDQDO
IURP7ULQVLF¶VSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWVLQFH 7KLVLVWKHILUVWWLPH,KDYHHYHU
IRUPDOO\RSSRVHGDSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
,RSSRVH7ULQVLF¶VUHTXHVWIRU:DONDEOH8UEDQ ³:8´ &RGH7 ]RQLQJEHFDXVHWKH
SURSRVHG¶KLJKSURMHFW VWRULHVDPH]]DQLQH ZLWK¶VHWEDFNVLVWRRWDOODQG
KDVLQVXIILFLHQWVHWEDFNVWRILWLQZLWKWKHPRVWO\VLQJOHVWRU\KRPHVZLWKODUJHOXVK
LUULJDWHGORWVRQWZRVLGHVRIWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWXQGHUWKH&LW\¶VRZQ:8
&RGH7KHGHYHORSPHQWZLOOOLQH7ULQVLF¶VSRFNHWVZKLOHXQGHUPLQLQJWKHORQJWHUP
HIIRUWVDQGLQYHVWPHQWRIKRPHRZQHUVDGMDFHQWWRDQGQHDUWKHSURSHUW\7KH:8
&RGHUHFRJQL]HVWKHYDOXHWKDWHVWDEOLVKHGYLEUDQWVPDOOVFDOHQHLJKERUKRRGVEULQJ
WRWKH&LW\7ULQVLFZLOOVHOOLWVSURSHUW\DQGPRYHRQZKLOHWKRVHRIXVZKRDUHPRVW
LQYHVWHGLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRGZLOOEHVWXFNZLWKWKHGHWULWXVRIWKH&LW\¶V]RQLQJ
PLVWDNH3RWHQWLDOUHVLGHQWVDUHQRWORRNLQJWRSXUFKDVHRUPRYHLQWRSURSHUWLHV
DFURVVWKHVWUHHWIURPVXFKDQLPSRVLQJDQGJODULQJO\LQDSSURSULDWHVWUXFWXUH
%HFDXVHWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH:8&RGH,GRQRW
XQGHUVWDQGZK\VWDIIDSSURYHG7ULQVLF¶VDSSOLFDWLRQ2Q-DQXDU\WKH
$OKDPEUD9LOODJH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHH ³93&´ DOVRDSSURYHG7ULQVLF¶VUHTXHVWIRU
UH]RQLQJLQDYRWH2Q0DUFK,ILOHGDQHWKLFVFRPSODLQWDJDLQVW
&KDUOH\-RQHVDPHPEHURIWKH$OKDPEUD93&EHFDXVHKHYRWHGWRJUDQW7ULQVLF¶V
DSSOLFDWLRQHYHQWKRXJKKHRZQHGDQGZDVDWWHPSWLQJWRVHOOIRUDVXEVWDQWLDOSURILW
WKUHHVPDOOFRPPHUFLDOSURSHUWLHVXSWKHVWUHHW7KHVHSURSHUWLHV¶YDOXHKDVEHHQ
LQFUHDVHGE\WKH$OKDPEUD93&¶VDQG3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VSUHOLPLQDU\JUDQWRI
7ULQVLF¶VUH]RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQ$VRIWKLVGDWHP\HWKLFVFRPSODLQWLVVWLOOSHQGLQJ,
KDYHEHHQWROGWKDWWKH&LW\&RXQFLOZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHHWKLFVFRPSODLQWDZHHNDIWHULW
GHWHUPLQHVWKHPHULWVRI7ULQVLF¶VDSSOLFDWLRQ
,DPFRQIRXQGHGE\WKH&LW\¶VVFKHGXOLQJRIFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHHWKLFVFRPSODLQW
DIWHUWKHUH]RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQ&KDUOH\-RQHV¶FRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWWDLQWVWKHHQWLUH
SURFHHGLQJ,IWKH&LW\&RXQFLOGHWHUPLQHVWRJUDQW7ULQVLF¶VUH]RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQ
GHVSLWH7ULQVLF¶VIDLOXUHWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH:8&RGHDQG&KDUOH\-RQHV¶LQYROYHPHQW
LQWKH&LW\¶VDGMXGLFDWLRQRI7ULQVLF¶VDSSOLFDWLRQWKH&RXQFLOZLOOSHUIRUPDJUDYH
GLVVHUYLFHWRWKHKRPHRZQHUVZKRKDYHGRQHWKHLUEHVWWRPDNH8SWRZQDGHVLUDEOH
SODFHWROLYH:HVXSSRUWWKH&LW\¶VGHVLUHWREULQJQHZUHVLGHQWVZLWKLQD
PLQXWHGULYHRIWKHOLJKWUDLO%XWWKHUHDUHPRUHDSSURSULDWHZD\VWRLQFUHDVHKRXVLQJ
DORQJWKHOLJKWUDLOWKDWFRPSOLHVZLWKWKH:8&RGHUHVSHFWVFXUUHQWUHVLGHQWVDQG
UHIOHFWVWKHDUHD¶VKLVWRULFVWDWXV1RWRQO\KDYHORFDOKRPHRZQHUVDFFHSWHGPDQ\
RWKHUODUJHUGHYHORSPHQWVLQWKHDUHDEXWLIWKH&LW\DOORZHGWKHPWREXLOGDFFHVVRU\
PRWKHULQODZVXLWHVRUJXHVWKRXVHVRQWKHLUSURSHUWLHVRZQHUVZKRDUHFRPPLWWHG
WRWKHDUHDZRXOGEXLOGPDQ\PRUHUHQWDOXQLWVWKDQWKHXQLWVWKDW7ULQVLF
SURSRVHVWREXLOG
7KDQN\RXIRUFRQVLGHULQJWKLVHPDLO