Attachment C - VPC Summary - Z-TA-3-24-Y.pdf

ATTACHMENT C 
Z-TA-3-24-Y: Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District 
Village Planning Committee Summary Results 
 
Village 
Information 
Only Date 
Recommendation 
Date 
Recommendations 
Vote 
Alhambra 
8/27/24 
10/22/24 
Approval, per the staff 
recommendation 
11-2 
 
Camelback 
East 
9/10/24 
10/1/24 
Approval, per the staff 
recommendation 
16-0 
Central 
City 
9/9/24 
10/21/24 
Approval, per the staff 
recommendation 
10-0 
Encanto 
9/9/24 
10/7/24 
Denial 
8-4-1 
Estrella 
9/17/24 
10/15/24 
No quorum 
n/a 
Maryvale 
9/11/24 
10/9/24 
No quorum 
n/a 
North 
Mountain 
9/18/24 
10/16/24 
Approval, per the staff 
recommendation 
13-0 
South 
Mountain 
9/10/24 
10/8/24 
Approval, per the staff 
recommendation, with 
direction 
12-0

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY  
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
August 27, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation on the text amendment Z-TA-3-24 
regarding the new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District. Mr. Rogers 
explained that the text amendment is in response to HB 2297 which requires that 
municipalities provide administrative permissions for adaptive reuse of existing 
commercial structures and the conversation of commercial properties to multifamily 
uses on up to 10 percent of commercial properties. Mr. Rogers explained that the City 
of Phoenix is creating the ARM Overlay District which will facilitate adaptive reuse and 
multifamily development, explained that the allowed height and intensity for multifamily 
developments within the overlay would be equivalent to the Walkable Urban Code T5:5 
district, and explained that the overlay will be located within the designated Transit 
Oriented Communities (TOC). 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only 
August 27, 2024 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Keith Ender asked who bears the financial responsibility for the 
affordable housing. Mr. Rogers explained that developers are required to provide 10% 
of the total number of units built as affordable housing. Mr. Rogers explained that 
developers bear the costs, but these costs could potentially be passed on to renters. 
 
Committee Member Martin Shultz asked about the purpose of the proposed 
amendments from Mr. Rogers' perspective. Mr. Rogers explained that the text 
amendment addresses two key components: adaptive reuse and multifamily housing. 
Mr. Rogers emphasized that these changes are in response to state law, which allows 
for higher density and height by right, while also requiring affordable housing provisions. 
Mr. Rogers expressed confidence in how the City responded to the state bill and 
acknowledged that the proposed amendments might be more contentious in some 
Transit-Oriented Communities than in others. 
 
Committee Member Shultz expressed interest in receiving more information over time 
regarding the need for affordable housing. Committee Member Shultz explained that 
significant investments have been made in Transit-Oriented Communities and related 
infrastructure improvements, and explained that it makes sense for the City to capitalize 
on these investments. Committee Member Shultz requested additional information on 
transit-oriented development (TOD), infill, and the City's plans for developing specific 
areas. 
 
Committee Member Pamela Fitzgerald expressed frustration, stating that she wishes 
the state would allow cities more autonomy to manage their own affairs. 
 
Committee Member Shultz explained that the City does not operate in isolation and 
emphasized that as the City continues to grow, there are defined roles for various levels 
of government.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 22, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
11-2 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment 
Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by 
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay 
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily development 
and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.  
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Charles Jones asked about the mile distance requirement. Mr. 
Rogers explained that state law requires cities to allow 10% of their commercial areas 
to develop up to five stories with densities equivalent to the highest zoning district within 
one mile of the subject property. Mr. Rogers stated that the City of Phoenix applied this 
by allowing sites within existing Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) to develop 
according to Walkable Urban (WU) Code T5:5 standards, permitting unlimited density 
and five-story buildings.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
October 22, 2024 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Martin Shultz stated that this policy originated from state law and 
questioned whether cities should control zoning or if state involvement is appropriate. 
Committee Member Shultz stated that the motivation behind some legislation is to 
create challenges for transit-oriented development. Mr. Rogers discussed the balance 
of benefits and risks in the relationship between city zoning authority and state 
regulations. Committee Member Shultz explained that determining zoning jurisdiction is 
complex and raised the importance of regional planning and described the politics that 
opposed the Capitol Mall light rail expansion. 
 
Committee Member Quanta Crews expressed support for how Phoenix applied the 
state law through an overlay, explained she supported the law as a state legislator due 
to its potential to create affordable housing, and asked about the public engagement 
process. Mr. Rogers clarified that the application of the ARM Overlay will be an 
administrative process that does not require public hearings, stated that the overlay will 
not alter existing rezoning procedures, and reiterated that the ARM Overlay applies 
within established high-intensity policy areas. 
 
Committee Member Marshall Pimentel highlighted the benefit of affordable housing 
through this process, stated that the overlay is a small but positive step, and explained 
that Arizona’s prohibition on mandatory inclusionary housing presents barriers. 
 
Committee Member David Krietor raised concerns about the proposed five-story 
allowance, stated that some commercial properties in the ARM Overlay are adjacent to 
single-family homes, and described previously conflicts over height within the Alhambra 
Village. Mr. Rogers explained that developments within 100 feet of single-family zoning 
are limited to two stories. 
 
Committee Member Jones requested clarification on the ARM Overlay boundaries. 
Mr. Rogers presented the ARM Overlay boundaries. 
 
Committee Member Jones asked if affordable housing was mandatory for projects 
utilizing the ARM Overlay and asked about funding. Mr. Rogers confirmed that 
affordable housing is required for multifamily developed under the ARM Overlay, stated 
that the affordable housing is funded by developers, and explained that developers 
could choose to rezone if they wish to avoid providing affordable housing. 
 
Committee Member Crews questioned the appropriate distance requirement for the 
two-story height limitation near single-family zones and whether 300 feet would be more 
appropriate. Committee Member Krietor described Alhambra’s support for affordable 
housing, explained conflicts over height near single-family areas, and stated that 
overlay may lead to potential disputes regarding height. Committee Member Jones 
explained that step-downs are sometimes required and stated that determining an 
optimal distance from single family to limit the height is challenging.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
October 22, 2024 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member John Owens asked whether the presentation’s reference to 20% 
of commercial areas being within ARM Overlay included the downtown and airport 
areas. Mr. Rogers explained that he is unsure. 
 
Committee Member Jones inquired about potential consequences if the City did not 
adopt the ARM Overlay by the deadline and asked about other cities' approaches. Mr. 
Rogers stated that failing to adopt the overlay could expose the City to lawsuits, 
explained that other cities generally applied the state law city-wide, and stated that 
Phoenix’s approach applied the overlay to existing high-intensity policy areas. 
 
Committee Member Jones asked about potential changes to the state law. Mr. 
Rogers stated he was unaware of any planned changes. Committee Member Crews 
stated that she may try to potentially modify the state law to increase the distance a 
property must be from single-family homes in order to allow five-story developments. 
 
Committee Member Pimentel stated that the bill was the result of compromise 
between major cities, developers, and the League of Cities and Towns. Committee 
Member Crews echoed Committee Member Pimentel‘s comments and added that 
significant compromise was involved in the bill’s development. 
 
Committee Member Keyser asked about the most challenging parts of process up to 
this point. Mr. Rogers noted difficulties in interpreting legislative intent and emphasized 
the importance of applying the overlay selectively to protect low-intensity areas. 
 
Committee Member Keyser stated that affordable housing materials might be less 
expensive because affordable units do not require luxury amenities and may be smaller 
in size. 
 
Committee Member Dina Smith asked for clarification on the state law’s requirements. 
Mr. Rogers explained that cities must allow 10% of commercial properties to build up to 
five stories, with density equivalent to the highest density allowed within one mile of the 
property.  
 
Committee Member Smith asked about the rationale behind the state law and raised 
concerns about the cumulative density impact, especially on schools and property 
values. Mr. Rogers explained that the state aims to increase housing availability and 
address the affordable housing shortage, and stated that limiting the overlay to TOC 
areas is an effort to manage density impacts. Committee Member Keyser discussed 
the negative consequences of sprawl, including increased infrastructure costs, pollution, 
and urban heat effects, and highlighted the role of impact fees for new development. 
Committee Member Smith reiterated concerns about potential over-development 
impacting property values and local schools. 
 
Committee Member Jak Keyser asked if there is a possibility that the overlay may be 
amended in the future. Mr. Rogers explained that it is possible that the City may revisit

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
October 22, 2024 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the ARM Overlay and explained that Proposition 207 makes it easier to grant changes 
than to take them away. 
 
Committee Member Keyser asked about the possibility of tabling the discussion. Mr. 
Rogers explained that the text amendment will be heard by the City Council before the 
next Alhambra VPC meeting. 
 
Committee Member David Krietor expressed his support and stated that he would 
second a motion. 
 
Committee Member Crews thanked Committee Member Smith for her comments and 
emphasized that the goal of the state law is to encourage greater density and provide 
more housing options for everyone. Committee Member Crews described the urgency 
of the situation, explained that the City is experiencing a significant population increase 
and a housing shortage, and expressed appreciation for how the City is implementing 
the state law through the overlay. Committee Member Crews explained that state laws 
can change, stated that the current measures are a temporary solution, and 
emphasizing the need to explore more comprehensive solutions. Committee Member 
Smith cautioned that sometimes temporary solutions can become problematic. 
Committee Member Crews explained that failing to act will result in more families facing 
homelessness. Committee Member Smith expressed concern that new housing is too 
expensive, and that young people are struggling to afford housing. Committee Member 
Crews explained that unless the government steps in to subsidize housing and increase 
taxes, negotiations with developers will be necessary to find workable solutions. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
None. 
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
MOTION 
Committee Member Jak Keyser made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-
Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member David Krietor seconded the 
motion.  
 
VOTE 
11-2, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation 
passed with Committee Members Crews, Farina, Harris, Keyser, Krietor, Owens, 
Pimentel, Sanchez, Shultz, Camp, and DeGraffenreid in favor and Committee Members 
Jones and Smith opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
Staff has no comment.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 10, 2024  
Proposal 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION: 
 
John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the proposed text 
amendment, which is a response to State Bill 2297, which mandates the development 
of multifamily use in areas previously lacking such opportunities. Mr. Roanhorse stated 
updating the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to evaluate and enhance the 
zoning framework, focusing on areas already suited for multifamily development. Mr. 
Roanhorse expressed that the amendment encourages the redevelopment of existing 
commercial properties for multifamily purposes where appropriate and not all 
commercial properties are suitable for multifamily use, so a detailed analysis has been 
conducted to determine suitability. Mr. Roanhorse summarized the proposed changes in 
the text amendment which include definitions of affordable housing, replacing the H-R1 
Zoning District with a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District, and 
revisions the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. Mr. Roanhorse stated the process will 
evolve gradually and will primarily impact a specific subset of areas within the city and 
the focus of the amendment is on adaptive reuse for multifamily development within 
designated transit-oriented communities. Mr. Roanhorse said the proposed changes are 
designed to support areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, such as transit 
systems and established commercial districts. Mr. Roanhorse said the new overlay

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only 
Page 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
areas will affect locations within transit-oriented communities, particularly around 
Central Avenue and other key transit routes. Mr. Roanhorse stated the Adaptive Reuse 
Multifamily (ARM) overlay district will be applied to designated commercial districts (R-5, 
C-1, C-2, and C-3) that already have adaptive reuse programs and will enable the 
conversion of any nonresidential building within the designated areas into multifamily 
housing. Mr. Roanhorse displayed a map of the transit-oriented area and noted the 
intent of these amendments is to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of zoning 
regulations in supporting adaptive reuse and multifamily development in transit-oriented 
areas that will increase in residential density while leveraging existing infrastructure and 
transit options. Mr. Roanhorse stated the presentation provided is for information only 
and it will come before the committee next month for action. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE: 
 
Committee Member Williams asked if the areas impacted by the text amendment in 
Camelback East are just around the airport. Mr. Roanhorse responded noting the 
areas along 50th Street and Van Buren area are exempt due to their proximity to the 
airport. 
 
Vice Chair Fischbach asked what is the definition of low-income housing and 
moderate income when it comes to housing. Committee Member Eichelkraut 
responded for low income it is based on federal standards, 80 percent of the area 
median income (AMI) and for moderate income is approximately from 80 to 120 percent 
of AMI. 
 
Committee Member Eichelkraut asked how would mixed-use development, such as 
combining retail on the lower floors with residential units above be addressed with the 
proposed changes. Mr. Roanhorse responded the feasibility of mixed-use development 
depends on the location and the overlays will allows some flexibility and the Planning 
and Development Department is open to various approaches, but the success of mixed-
use projects will vary. Committee Member Eichelkraut stated it was disappointing the 
Gateway area and 50th Street areas were excluded because these areas need more 
housing. Mr. Roanhorse responded that one of the main issues was the proximity to 
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. 
 
Committee Member Paceley asked since the proposed text amendment was driven by 
changes from the State Legislature does this impact Plan Phoenix which will be on the 
November ballot. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there would be no impacts because 
the proposed amendments took into consideration the city’s current activities. 
Committee Member Paceley stated the text amendment should be good with the city’s 
residents.   
 
Committee Member Abbott asked about the housing inventory and the deadline to 
obtain this information and does the county assessor have this information. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded this information is being collected and will be an ongoing 
process.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only 
Page 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 
 
None. 
 
 
STAFF RESONSE: 
 
NONE.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:  
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
*REVISED November 1, 2024 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 1, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions 
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace 
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new 
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District; 
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning 
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to 
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the 
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation  
VPC Vote 
16-0 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there 
were two distinct items for review and voting, following a previous discussion. Mr. 
Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for 
promoting growth in underdeveloped areas and aligns with the state legislative actions 
encouraging adaptive reuse, creating a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance 
to facilitate such projects. Mr. Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on 
the maps to accommodate development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will 
support adaptive reuse and multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous 
presentations to the committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at 
making multifamily and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse 
said one key area of concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain 
developments without public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use 
buildings. Mr. Roanhorse stated additionally, the potential for increased height and 
density in transit-oriented communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the 
amendments seek to balance these factors with the existing zoning framework. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Paceley asked about the 10 percent allocation for affordable and 
workforce housing and how would requirements for development be implemented. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that during the review process applicants and developer may 
access how to include various housing types. Committee Member Paceley asked if the 
Village Planning Committee will see plans and be able to add stipulations for housing 
and development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that for rezoning cases that come to the 
Committee they may review and provide feedback and if practical include stipulations.   
 
Committee Member Augusta asked if parking would change as a result of this 
proposed text amendment considering the implications of previous parking 
amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that proposals would still meet the required 
parking based on the zoning. Mr. Cam McCutchen, staff, responded that with parking 
requirements, instead of maximums the City utilized minimums to provide allowance for 
a specific number of parking spaces. Mr. McCutchen stated that in some cases options 
like the Walkable Urban Code allow flexibility in different transects to incentivize 
measures to reduce automobile parking. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 
 
None. 
 
STAFF RESPONSE: 
 
None.   
 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: 
 
Committee Member Paceley commented the proposed text amendments are a good 
idea to include access to light rail and improve multifamily development and it makes 
good sense. 
 
MOTION 
 
Committee Member Paceley motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the 
staff recommendation. Committee Member Sharaby seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE 
 
16-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation 
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg 
Thraen, Garcia, Guevar, Jurayeva, Langmade, Paceley, Schmieder, Sharaby, 
Whitesell, Williams, Fischbach and Swart in favor. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 9, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Christopher DePerro, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the Arizona 
Legislature, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily 
development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Olivas asked about the requirement for administrative approval 
with no public hearings. Mr. DePerro clarified that it is based on the requirement from 
state law. Ms. Olivas stated a concern about removing public hearings and the 
opportunity for people to give input. Mr. DePerro stated that the allowance is targeted 
to Transit Oriented Communities. 
 
Committee Member Starks clarified that this is already state law, and the City must 
designate the areas of applicability.

Central City Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only 
September 9, 2024 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 21, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
10-0 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Committee Member Nervis joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 10 
members. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation about the proposed text amendment 
and companion rezoning case, providing background about HB 2297, a summary of 
the provisions of the proposed text, and a description of the area included in the initial 
overlay boundaries. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
None. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
None.

Central City Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
October 21, 2024 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
MOTION 
Vice Chair Gaughan made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y, per the 
staff recommendation. Darlene Martinez seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE 
10-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y, per the staff recommendation, 
passed; Committee Members Ban, Burns, Greenman, Martinez, Nervis, Olivas, Starks, 
Vargas, Gaughan, and O’Grady in favor.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y  
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 9, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the proposed text 
amendment, which is a response to State Bill 2297, which mandates the development 
of multifamily use in areas previously lacking such opportunities. Mr. Roanhorse stated 
updating the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to evaluate and enhance the 
zoning framework, focusing on areas already suited for multifamily development. Mr. 
Roanhorse expressed that the amendment encourages the redevelopment of existing 
commercial properties for multifamily purposes where appropriate and not all 
commercial properties are suitable for multifamily use, so a detailed analysis has been 
conducted to determine suitability. Mr. Roanhorse summarized the proposed changes in 
the text amendment which include definitions of affordable housing, replacing the H-R1 
Zoning District with a new ARM Overlay District, and revisions the TOD-1 and TOD-2 
overlay districts. Mr. Roanhorse stated the process will evolve gradually and will 
primarily impact a specific subset of areas within the city and the focus of the 
amendment is on adaptive reuse for multifamily development within designated transit-
oriented communities. Mr. Roanhorse said the proposed changes are designed to

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only 
Page 2 of 3 
 
support areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, such as transit systems and 
established commercial districts. Mr. Roanhorse said the new overlay areas will affect 
locations within transit-oriented communities, particularly around Central Avenue and 
other key transit routes. Mr. Roanhorse stated the ARM overlay district will be applied to 
designated commercial districts (R-5, C-1, C-2, and C-3) that already have adaptive 
reuse programs and will enable the conversion of any nonresidential building within the 
designated areas into multifamily housing. Mr. Roanhorse displayed a map of the 
transit-oriented area and noted the intent of these amendments is to enhance the 
flexibility and effectiveness of zoning regulations in supporting adaptive reuse and 
multifamily development in transit-oriented areas that will increase in residential density 
while leveraging existing infrastructure and transit options. Mr. Roanhorse said the 
amendment does not supersede requirements of other overlays or planning districts and 
it does not eliminate historic preservation approvals, ensuring that historic properties 
and characteristics remain protected. Mr. Roanhorse stated the Encanto Village 
Planning Committee will vote on this item and then it will proceed to the Planning 
Commission in October then to City Council in November. 
QUESTIONS FROM THE  COMMITTEE 
Committee Matthew Jewett asked about the intended height and density and asked if 
the proposed height may not exceed and may not be less than five stories and does this 
mean there is a fixed height of exactly five stories. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the 
intent of the height is to maintain a minimum of five stories but allow flexibility depending 
on the zoning.   
Committee Member Warnicke commented that many of the proposed changes are 
influenced by the WU Code and there is a standard for three-inch caliper trees, but it 
appears that the amendment will allow two-inch caliper trees. Mr. Roanhorse 
responded that underlying zoning would remain applicable however, if necessary, the 
committee may recommend stipulations for tree sizes if necessary. Committee Member 
Warnicke suggested the text amendment should include a requirement for three-inch 
caliper trees and this would incorporate the intent of the WU Code and create more 
shade. Ms. Tricia Gomes, Planning and Development Department Deputy Director, 
responded that the proposed change does not impact the WU Code but with the created 
overlay height and density will be deferred to the allowances of the WU Code. 
Committee Member Warnicke stated that the text amendment does refer specifically to 
a caliper size, and this should be uniformly applied to the new overlay district.  
Chair Wagner asked if there have been any inventory or analysis done on applicable 
buildings in the R-5, C-2, and C-3 where the overlay district will be to see how many 
possible units would be gained. Ms. Gomes responded there was not sufficient time to 
conduct a full assessment within each mapped area and the targeted area would be 
about 20 percent and the proposal is an opt-in overlay and if there is residential 
development 10 percent has to be multifamily which allows development standard

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only 
Page 3 of 3 
 
flexibility. Chair Wagner asked with this text amendment and future ones planned will 
they address the missing middle housing, and this may impose a greater impact on 
density in some limited areas and by estimate approximately 4,000 units have been 
entitled in the Encanto Village and with this expected growth has there been an 
environmental impact study conducted and can the infrastructure respond to the growth. 
Chair Wagner asked about the five-story requirement but if it is within 100 feet of a 
single-family development it can only be two stories and there are approved multifamily 
developments in the same area does this still apply. Ms. Gomes responded that there 
are several bills that will be forthcoming, and some will impact others and from the City 
the approach has been holistic in responding to each one and for this amendment 
middle housing is reviewed so it will fit with the current standards and what additional 
requirements may come up. 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
None.  
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y  
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 7, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions 
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace 
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new 
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District; 
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning 
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to 
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the 
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
8-4-1 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No member of the public registered to speak in this item.  
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
John Roanhorse, staff provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there 
were two distinct items for review and voting. Mr. Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y 
focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for promoting growth in underdeveloped 
areas and aligns with the state legislative actions encouraging adaptive reuse, creating 
a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance to facilitate such projects. Mr. 
Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on the maps to accommodate 
development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will support adaptive reuse and 
multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous presentations to the 
committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at making multifamily 
and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse said one key area of 
concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain developments without 
public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use buildings. Mr. Roanhorse 
stated additionally, the potential for increased height and density in transit-oriented 
communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the amendments seek to balance 
these factors with the existing zoning framework.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 2 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Chair Wagner commented that House Bill 2297, stipulates that no more than 10 
percent of eligible properties within the city can be developed for adaptive reuse. Chair 
Wagner stated that the current TOC overlay seems to include over 20 percent of 
commercially zoned properties, exceeding the 10 percent cap. Mr. Roanhorse 
responded that the 10 percent cap does not necessarily apply to every property in the 
TOC, as the city has mapped areas where adaptive reuse is appropriate. Mr. 
Roanhorse stated the focus is on working within the existing zoning framework, 
ensuring consistency with what is already allowed by zoning ordinance. Mr. Roanhorse 
stated the amendments will streamline adaptive reuse in areas that can accommodate it 
without increasing zoning entitlements, maintaining balance between development and 
current zoning laws. 
 
Chair Wagner asked how the City will track commercial properties within the overlay to 
ensure compliance with the amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is 
currently gathering data on the percentage of commercial properties and their square 
footage and are aware of the need to monitor this information for future development. 
Mr. Roanhorse stated that in a previous presentation staff explained that exact numbers 
are still being collected. 
 
Committee Member George asked whether the committee would be notified about 
specific properties or buildings eligible for development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that 
the committee would be notified of any rezoning cases or changes, and that notices 
would still be provided for developments that were by-right. Mr. Roanhorse stated that 
notifications would go to neighborhoods and associations when significant changes or 
developments were made. 
 
Committee Member Jewett stated there was not clarity regarding height restriction and 
reiterated that what he understood in the presentation, and it did not align with what he 
was reading in the legislation. Committee Member Jewett stated concern about 
buildings being classified as functionally obsolete and noted the potential for 
manipulation by neglecting repairs or setting rent prices high enough to keep properties 
vacant. Committee Member Jewett stated that properties may be left to deteriorate 
intentionally and asked if there were any measures in place to prevent such 
manipulation and noted the issue of neglected properties in his neighborhood. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that is a concern and will be a challenging issue and stated the 
PDD (Planning and Development Department) is focused on fostering development 
potential rather than driving economic disinvestment. Mr. Roanhorse said that the City 
can collaborate with departments like Neighborhood Services to address repairs or 
underused properties and noted that the City's Economic Development Department has 
measures in place to intervene when necessary and some initiative falls on the private 
development community. Mr. Roanhorse explained that the text amendment aims to 
prevent intentional disinvestment and supports development in appropriate areas, 
particularly near transit corridors.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 3 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Wagner expressed frustration that neither the City nor the State have provided 
clear answers to important questions that were brought up during the review. Chair 
Wagner said that there is a growing need for accessible workforce housing and noted 
the limitation of the adaptive reuse program is just 6 percent of the City's land, primarily 
around 50 TOD areas. Chair Wagner stated that only 18 percent of service workers live 
in the TOD areas, leaving 88 percent of service workers without affordable housing 
options near transit locations. Chair Wagner said the City should expand opportunities 
for adaptive reuse beyond the current limitations, noting that more affordable housing 
options should be available in other areas like Desert Ridge and Camelback East, 
rather than restricting it to a small percentage of land near transit areas. Chair Wagner 
stated disappointment in the current approach and hoped that the City will make 
adjustments by January to better address the housing needs of Phoenix's workforce. 
Mr. Roanhorse responded that the overlay does promote the creation of affordable 
housing by requiring that 10 percent of units be dedicated to affordable or workforce 
housing. Mr. Roanhorse stated the importance of defining affordable and workforce 
housing, which has been clarified in the amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the 
multifamily overlay and adaptive reuse provisions encourage development in areas near 
transit, especially around light rail, while allowing flexibility for developers to adapt 
projects to the unique characteristics of those zones. Mr. Roanhorse stated that historic 
preservation remains unaffected by these changes. 
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is concern about the complexity of the proposed 
changes, particularly in relation to HB 2297, noting that these types of amendments can 
be difficult to understand. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that there needs for more 
accessible and visual presentations, as well as clearer communication from the City to 
help the public understand the details of proposed changes. Vice Chair Rodriguez 
stated that staff working on proposals should make them more digestible, particularly for 
community members unfamiliar with zoning language. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that 
while developers are not mandated to use the adaptive reuse and multifamily overlay, 
they must meet the affordability requirements if they choose to participate. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that there are challenges in responding to legislative 
requirements while maintaining practical zoning interaction with the public and despite 
these challenges public involvement remains crucial, as various committees and 
organizations are regularly engaged in the planning and review processes. 
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez expressed frustration with the lack of feedback opportunities 
regarding the TOC presentation. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated she walks, bikes, and 
uses public transit, and it feel like a dead zone with lack vibrancy around Central 
Avenue. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is a need for improvements and the 
importance of providing workforce housing close to transit corridors. Vice Chair 
Rodriguez said there are challenges faced by service workers and teachers who 
deserve to live near where they work but currently do not have sufficient options. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded the challenges in providing affordable housing and workforce 
opportunities are significant and the City is in the process of expanding opportunities. 
 
Committee Member Doescher stated concern with the current state legislation 
affecting affordable housing and the pressing need for housing options near

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 4 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
employment centers, particularly for healthcare workers who often face challenges due 
to irregular hours. Committee Member Doescher stated that while some developments 
may be located near light rail, this approach does not address the diverse needs of all 
residents, especially those with limited housing options. Committee Member Doescher 
said it is frustrating that state laws that do not consider local realities, stating that these 
mandates could hinder cities' ability to address their unique housing challenges and the 
concern that developers might prioritize profit over affordable housing. 
 
Committee Member Warnicke expressed concerns about certain properties within the 
TOD area, stating that some should not be designated for five-story buildings. 
Committee Member Warnicke said that instead of focusing solely on the light rail 
corridor for affordable housing, the city should also consider properties along bus routes 
and mass transit lines and this approach would help protect neighborhoods from 
changes like large out-of-place buildings and create affordable housing along existing 
transit routes. 
 
Chair Wagner stated that the state legislation originally intended to apply the TOD 
statewide, but the City of Phoenix chose to focus on 60 percent of its land area. Chair 
Wagner said it was disappointing that the City's current approach focuses on expensive 
properties along the light rail corridor may not become affordable housing. Chair 
Wagner said there might be an opportunity for small developers to convert underutilized 
buildings across the entire City, rather than concentrating on a limited area and there is 
a need for more meaningful progress and that they have until January to reconsider 
their approach. 
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that when the City initiated the Walkable Urban (WU) 
Code, it was a citywide proposal. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there were concerns at the 
time, including the potential for overdevelopment in areas not ready for it, which led to 
opposition against it. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is some confusion about the 
current situation, where there is now interest in focusing citywide development around 
transportation, such as the light rail and asked for clarification on the approach now, 
comparing it to previous concerns about the broader application of the WU Code. Mr. 
Klimek responded that the WU Code was proposed citywide and that it was reviewed 
by all 15 Village Planning Committees and stated that many projects have successfully 
utilized the code in various areas of the city. Mr. Roanhorse responded that while the 
WU Code had been applied successfully in some areas, it was not practical everywhere 
and noted it has been adapted in a few projects, driving innovation in development, 
particularly in mixed-use areas. 
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is difficulty in balancing the need for flexibility in 
development with protecting neighborhoods from rapid development. Vice Chair 
Rodriguez said there were past concerns about certain developments, such as the 
Phoenix Country Club, which raised worries about similar projects taking an easier route 
for approval and there needs to be better understand with the current perspective on 
expanding development citywide, especially focusing on transit corridors. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that some areas are better suited for mixed-use or dense

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 5 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
development, while others may need a more specialized approach and there are many 
challenges for future development. 
 
Committee Member Procaccini asked about the potential for expanding development 
beyond the current overlay boundaries and whether there are plans or metrics guiding 
future development areas. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is planning future 
text amendments and noted that the City is trying to be more responsive in addressing 
development needs, particularly around transportation hubs and with a focus on 
increasing housing options, including single-family and multifamily developments. Mr. 
Roanhorse referenced the Housing Phoenix Plan as a guide for future residential 
growth. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
None.  
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
 
None.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE. 
 
MOTION 1 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y: 
 
Vice Chair Rodriguez motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff 
recommendation.  
Committee Member Procaccini seconded the motion.  
 
VOTE 1 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y: 
 
3-8-2; motion to approve Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation fails with 
Committee Members Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in favor; and Committee 
Members Doescher, George, Jewett, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and 
Wagner opposed; and Cardenas and Kleinman abstaining.  
 
Chair Wagner stated the motion to recommend approval fails with three votes in favor, 
eight in opposition and two abstentions. 
 
Chair Wagner asked if there were any further motions.  
 
Committee Member Mahrle stated he would prefer to provide a statement on his vote 
so the Planning Commission would be aware of the Village Committee’s intentions. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that Committee Members may comment on their vote if that is 
their preference, and it will be noted in the meeting minutes.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 6 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
MOTION 2 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:  
 
Committee Member Mahrle motioned to recommend denial of  
Z-TA-3-24-Y.  
Committee Member Kleinman seconded the motion.  
 
Committee Member George stated that Committee has discussed the text 
amendments for an hour and that their vote should count toward an action on the 
motion. Chair Wagner responded that the Committee’s vote does have meaning and a 
motion to deny the request is before the Committee for action. 
 
Committee Member Doescher stated that access to TOD areas limits access to 
workforce residential opportunities. 
 
Committee Member Jewett stated there are inconsistencies in the language and there 
remains to be questions about the text amendment.  
 
Committee Member Tedhams stated that development should not be limited to the 
area around the light rail and there should be broader opportunities.  
 
Committee Member Warnicke stated that the map may place five story buildings 
where they do not belong and limits access for workforce housing.  
 
Chair Wagner stated that the action should apply to the entire City not six percent and 
there are discrepancies between HB 2297 and the text amendment.  
 
VOTE 2 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y: 
 
8-4-1; motioned recommend denial of Z-TA-3-24-Y passes the with Committee 
Members Doescher, George, Kleinman, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and 
Wagner in favor; and Jewett, Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in opposition; and 
Cardenas abstaining. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
 
September 17, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 
202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions regarding 
affordable housing and related items; replace Chapter 6, 
Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-Rise and High
Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and 
Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District; and amend Section 662
(Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One 
(TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning 
Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 and 
TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Staff Presentation: 
 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, summarized HB2297 which was approved by the Arizona 
Legislature. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that that this would require adaptive reuse of 
existing commercial structures and would be implemented for 10 percent of the City’s 
existing commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. Mrs. Sanchez Luna emphasized that 
the text amendment was in response to the Housing Bill 2297. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted 
several issues with the bill included having an inventory of all commercial buildings, 
difficulty imposing caps and added that all commercial sites are not appropriate for this 
implementation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment would apply to Transit 
Oriented Community (TOC) areas which had numerous stakeholder input for higher 
density and height and contained 20 percent of all commercial properties. Mrs. Sanchez 
Luna noted that Downtown, Gateway, and 50th Street Station TOC areas would not be 
applicable due to the proximity to the commercial airport. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that 
the overlay would apply to districts which already permit multifamily. Mrs. Sanchez Luna 
noted that these developments would be required to provide 10 percent affordable and 
workforce housing. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that this does not supersede other 
requirements, doesn’t change the zoning classification, does not change permitted uses, 
and does not eliminate historic preservation sites. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the 
presentation by displaying the timeline for the text amendment and contact information.

Estrella Village Planning Committee  
Meeting Summary  
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Questions from the Committee:  
 
Chair Perez asked if the Laveen Village would be hearing an information only 
presentation on the text amendment. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the text amendment 
would not be presented in Laveen because there are no TOC areas in the Village. Mrs. 
Sanchez Luna displayed the TOC map.  
 
Romona Brown asked if the case is expected to go before City Council in November. 
Mrs. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the TOC area for Estrella 
was located south of the freeway and north of Van Buren Street. Mrs. Brown noted that 
she lived within the TOC area. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that it would not be applicable 
to single-family zoned properties. Mrs. Brown noted the large property adjacent to Living 
Spaces along the freeway. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that that site is zoned PUD and 
that includes a narrative with separate development standards. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added 
that this text amendment would not apply to the PUD.  
 
Chair Perez asked for confirmation that Chris DePerro would be giving the next 
presentation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that she will have to verify. Chair Perez asked for 
the timeline. Mrs. Sanchez Luna displayed the timeline. Chair Perez request that if the 
committee had any questions before the hearing to reach out to Nayeli Sanchez Luna and 
Chris DePerro. 
 
Public Comments: 
 
None.  
 
Staff Response:  
 
None.  
 
Committee Discussion:  
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
 
October 15, 2024  
Request:  
 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions 
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace 
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new 
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District; 
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning 
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to 
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the 
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
 
No quorum 
VPC Vote 
No quorum 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No quorum. 
 
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:  
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 11, 2024 
Request  
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this request. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
 
Matteo Moric, staff, said the State Law, House Bill 2297, came into place because of 
the need for more housing due to the housing crisis. Mr. Moric stated the House Bill 
requires certain actions taken prior to January 1, 2025. These include: administrative 
permissions for adaptive reuse of existing commercial structures and for conversion of 
commercial properties to multi-family use, implementation on up 10% of the City’s 
existing commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. Mr. Moric explained the concerns of 
the House Bill and Phoenix’s response to mitigate effects of it and try to mesh it with the 
City’s efforts to manage development within City limits. Mr. Moric displayed the City’s 
Transit Oriented Communities map and noted it does not include the Downtown area 
and two areas adjacent to the commercial airport. Mr. Moric explained the City has an 
existing Adaptive Reuse program and is mostly compliant with HB 2297. Mr. Moric 
stated for the multi-family portion of the House Bill must provide a minimum of 10% of 
the dwelling units as low-income (“Affordable”) and/or moderate-income(“Workforce”) 
housing. Mr. Moric indicated we selected WU Code T5:5 development standards, which

Maryvale Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
has unlimited density (so complies with “highest density within one mile” requirement 
and 56-foot height provision (so complies with 5-story height provision of the State Law) 
with the exception not to exceed two stories when within 100 feet of single-family 
residence district. Mr. Moric added that some properties may not be able to apply some 
ARM Overlay District provisions if in conflict with HP or other overlay/regulatory plan 
requirements. Mr. Moric identified the Village Planning Committees for villages included 
in the ARM Overlay district and noted it would be coming back to the Village in October 
for a recommendation. 
 
Questions from Committee:  
 
Joe Barba asked if it would apply to all vacant commercial buildings. Mr. Moric said the 
overlay would apply in the Transit Oriented Community (TOC) areas, but not in the 
airport area or within the Downtown. 
 
Saundra Cole wanted to know the definition of an overlay. Mr. Moric said property 
would still have its underlying zoning but an overlay in this instance would allow 
additional height and density by right. 
 
Ms. Cole questioned what is considered affordable. Mr. Moric said there are two 
definitions as part of this overlay text amendment. Mr. Moric stated Affordable housing 
would include not more than 80% of median income and work force housing would be 
between 80 to 120% of the median income. Ms. Cole wanted to know if it was 80% of 
the entire State or within Maryvale. 
 
Chris DeMarest said lots of the lower income property include utility fees. 
 
Chair Derie asked if the City would own the land. Mr. Moric said this would be mainly 
for private property. 
 
Ken DuBose had concerns that developers were coming in with the overlay to get more 
incentives. Mr. Dubose asked about if a 55-year-old community were to come in how 
the overlay would impact them. Mr. Moric responded that zoning does not cover the 
age groups. Mr. DeMarest said probably if have 10% affordable housing you could do 
it. 
 
Mr. Moric said you can still apply for different standards if the overlay standards would 
not work for a developer. 
 
Chair Derie asked if a furniture warehouse in a TOD area can turn it into a multifamily 
project. Mr. Moric said you would have to still meet building codes. 
 
Mr. DePascal said south of the river wants to develop multi-level apartment complexes. 
Jennifer Fostino asked if the House Bill allows industrial uses. 
 
Mr. Moric clarified that they wanted to tailor the ARM Overlay towards the light rail 
areas. Mr. Barba said if someone wanted to convert commercial into residential they

Maryvale Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
would need to meet all the codes and they don’t have to, it just gives them the option to 
do so. 
 
Warren Norgaard said rather than the law apply to the whole city it would only apply to 
the TOC areas. 
 
Mr. Moric said if they had more questions to forward them to him prior to the next 
meeting and he provided Chris DePerro’s contact information who he said is the staff 
member who is most familiar with this text amendment. 
 
Mr. Barba asked who the main House Bill writers were as he believed they were 
Maryvale State Legislators. 
 
Mr. Norgaard asked what the difference is adding the overlay than leaving the law as 
existing. Mr. Moric stated State Law was not so straight forward and there potentially 
could be 5-story buildings with higher density scattered throughout the city even in 
areas which they may not be suited. Mr. Moric noted this overlay would direct this type 
of development in an area which may be more suitable for it. 
 
Public Comments: 
 
None. 
 
Staff Response 
 
None. 
 
Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Committee Discussion 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 9, 2024 
Request  
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
No quorum 
VPC Vote 
No quorum 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No quorum 
 
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation: 
 
None

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 18, 2024 
Request  
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
 
Chase Hales, staff, presented an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mr. 
Hales explained that the main proposal was to create an overlay that would satisfy the 
requirements of the recent legislation from the state requiring cities to allow for 
adaptive reuse of commercial structures. Mr. Hales stated that the text amendment 
would create the Adaptive Reuse Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District, that would apply 
to the majority of the pre-existing transit-oriented community districts. Mr. Hales 
presented a map that showed all the applicable areas and stated that the reasoning 
behind this choice was to concentrate the majority of adaptive reuse projects in not 
only places that the City was actively working to increase density, but also because 
the existing built infrastructure would support the increase is density. Mr. Hales 
finished by sharing the details of the criteria that projects would need to meet in order 
to take advantage of the adaptive reuse provisions.  
 
Questions from the Committee:

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Jaramillo asked that given that the legislation’s intent was to 
create opportunities for more affordable housing, why the City was only applying the 
overlay to the TOC districts. Committee Member Jaramillo continued stating that he 
was afraid that if the City did not effectively implement the requested provisions, the 
State would make even stronger pre-emptive laws. Chase Hales, staff, shared that 
the timeline for implementation was short, so there was limited time to fully research 
and craft a brand new strategy for implementation. Mr. Hales continued stating that 
the proposed provisions were also in line with the plans and policies guiding density 
and intensity to the light rail corridors. 
 
Committee Member Jaramillo stated that there were already incentives such as 
opportunity zones and low-income tax credits in the TOC districts and felt that the 
proposal would just put more low-income housing in the same areas that were 
already building low-income housing. Committee Member Jaramillo stated that the 
proposal would miss the opportunity to allow other parts of the city to have the 
transformational change that could bring density to where it is also needed. 
 
Public Comments:  
 
None. 
 
Committee Discussion:  
 
Committee Member Krentz stated that the state of Arizona was behind many other 
states that required affordable housing to be created with new development. 
Committee Member Krentz shared frustration that the overlay would only apply in the 
TOC areas, as he felt that the TOC areas were becoming a catch-all for any new 
concepts. Committee Member Krentz stated that he still supported the effort and said 
it was a “good first step.” Committee Member Krentz shared that he understood that 
wide-spread implementation might not be currently palatable but said that in the future 
he hoped the overlay would be applied in other areas of the city. 
 
Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he agreed with Mike Krentz and shared 
that the State’s legislation was an opportunity for the City to incentivize affordable 
housing throughout the city, not just in the TOC districts. Committee Member 
Jaramillo referenced the General Plan, which includes cores throughout the city, and 
stated that a direction should be made to have staff look into implementing the ARM 
overlay in areas such as the cores when the Committee made its recommendation. 
Chase Hales stated that there was already work being done by staff to research new 
potential cores and that it would certainly be feasible to have such a work program 
implemented. 
 
Committee Member O’Hara stated that there were certainly folks who would fight 
against the implementation in other parts of the city as a way to fight against diversity 
in their area, which he disagreed with entirely, but that there were other perspectives 
to look at housing from, one of them being services. Committee Member O’Hara 
referred to the State’s action to remove rental tax, which effective reduced budget

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
funds for services. Committee Member O’Hara added that working as a fire fighter, he 
was familiar with the strain already placed on Phoenix’s fire protection system. 
Committee Member O’Hara shared that he appreciated the slow conservative 
implementation of the overlay and stated that the broad implementation of the overlay 
would permit the potential to have concentrations of demand for services pop up, 
straining the City further. 
 
Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he saw the State legislation as a way for 
the City to argue against the potential NIMBY (not in my backyard) criticisms, as it will 
be required of the City to implement the requirements somewhere. 
 
Committee Member Matthews asked if the City Council could publicly identify next 
steps when they make their action at their Formal Meeting. Mr. Hales stated he was 
not sure what that would look like but said that the Committee could certainly give 
direction in their recommendation. 
 
Committee Member Barraza asked how the proposal compared to the actions other 
cities were taking. Mr. Hales stated that he was not aware of actions being taken by 
neighboring cities, but that Chris DePerro, the staff member who wrote the staff 
report, would likely know more. 
 
Committee Member Adams asked if there were any repercussions if the City did not 
comply with the State’s mandate. Vice Chair Matthews stated that the City would 
likely be open to civil lawsuits for negligence from property owners wanting to take 
advantage of the State’s mandated provisions.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 16, 2024 
Request  
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
13-0 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Ms. Stockham, staff, provided a brief presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment Z-TA-3-24 and companion case Z-136-24-Y, sharing elements of the 
legislation (HB 2297) and the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay 
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions, and the 
hearing schedule for the cases.  
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
 
None. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
None.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 
 
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews shared his understanding of the proposal and the 
timeline for compliance with state law and shared a desire to recommend approval of 
the proposal and to expand the applicability to other areas, such as Village Cores, in the 
future.  
 
Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo added that this is an opportunity to expand it to 
other areas now.  
 
Committee Member Arick O’Hara stated that he agreed with Committee Member 
Jaramillo but not on the deadline to push this through by January. Committee Member 
O’Hara stated that with a deadline to comply by January, the committee could vote no 
without direction, and shared that when the committee makes a recommendation with 
direction, there is a concern that the committee’s direction could not be listened to by 
other hearing bodies. Committee Member O’Hara shared that he does not disagree with 
the proposal but disagrees with the way it is being done and that he did not want to limit 
it to an area now and expand it later. 
 
Committee Member Mike Krentz shared that state law will be effective in January, this 
proposal will serve as a template to expand it to other areas, and reminded the 
committee of a previous proposal to expand the Walkable Urban Code applicability area 
citywide which was met with opposition. 
 
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that City Council will take action before January, 
and that he would also like to add direction regarding tracking and reporting the use of 
the overlay provisions back to the Village Planning Committees. 
 
Committee Member Joshua Carmona asked if other hearing bodies take into 
consideration the direction provided by Village Planning Committees.  
 
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews replied that from a Planning Commissioner perspective, 
he reads the Village Planning Committee recommendations and if, for example, a 
Village Planning Committee recommended denial of a case unanimously, he will take a 
close look at the discussion, and that Village Planning Committee recommendations 
could impact the Planning Commission recommendation. 
 
Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo stated he would also like to add direction to 
include Village Cores, along the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, and other major 
transportation corridors.  
 
MOTION – Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-7 
with direction that the applicability area be expanded in the future to include the Bus 
Rapid Transit line, Village Cores, and other transportation corridors.  
 
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews requested a friendly amendment to include direction that

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the Planning and Development Department track how often the overlay provisions are 
being used and report back to the Village Planning Committees. Vice Chair Matthews 
also suggested that the direction go on the companion case, Z-136-24-Y, which maps 
the boundaries of the overlay. Committee Member Krentz accepted the friendly 
amendment and the suggestion that direction be provided on Z-136-24-Y and restated 
the motion.  
 
MOTION – Z-TA-3-24-Y 
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y 
per the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Joshua Matthews seconded the motion.  
 
VOTE – Z-TA-3-24-Y 
13-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation 
passed; with Committee Members Alauria, Carmona, Garbarino, Jaramillo, Krentz, 
Larson, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Pamperin, Sommacampagna, Matthews and 
Fogelson in favor.  
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 10, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment 
Z-TA-3-24, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the Arizona 
Legislature, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily 
development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Greg Brownell asked about where the provisions of the bill would 
apply. Mr. Rogers stated that the bill is creating an overlay zone over the existing Transit 
Oriented Communities (TOC) areas and explained how the overlay makes site review 
more feasible.  
 
Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on whether the text amendment would 
permit T5:5 transect development standards only within the Affordable Residential 
Overlay (ARM). Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Marchuk's question. 
 
Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III inquired about what percentage of the Area Median 
Income (AMI) qualifies as affordable and workforce housing. Committee Member

South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only 
September 10, 2024 
Page 2 of 2 
 
Marcia Busching stated that affordable housing is considered to be 80% of AMI, while 
workforce housing is at 120% of AMI. 
 
Chair Marchuk asked whether the text amendment would apply to new builds or only to 
adaptive reuse. Mr. Rogers explained that the bill has two parts regarding adaptive reuse 
and multifamily developments, stated adaptive reuse must occur within an existing 
building, and explained multifamily developments can be new builds. 
 
Committee Member Greg Brownell raised concerns about practical applications and 
asked if adding a second story to R1-6 property or adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit 
(ADU) would change the process under the new provisions. Mr. Rogers stated that if the 
property is not in the overlay, the provisions do not apply and explained that ADUs are 
legal throughout the City of Phoenix. 
 
Committee Member Gene Holmerud asked if the utilities in these areas could support 
the additional development. Mr. Rogers explained that TOC areas are designed to 
support more intense development. 
 
Chair Marchuk asked about the differences between the ARM overlay and the TOC 
map. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM overlay excludes downtown and the areas near 
the airport. 
 
Chair Marchuk inquired if all of this would be handled administratively, and whether 
there would be a reduction in rezoning cases in these areas. Mr. Rogers stated that it is 
a possibility, but some developers may opt not to provide affordable housing. Committee 
Member Busching added that the overlay only allows multifamily development under the 
T5:5 standards, while other uses would still require going through the rezoning process. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked if there is a way to track how many multifamily 
permits are being pulled. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have metrics but explained 
that the "My Community Map" is available online and displays where permits are being 
pulled.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 8, 2024 
Request 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, 
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify 
definitions regarding affordable housing and related 
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and 
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) 
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim 
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)) 
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay 
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new 
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 
and TOD-2 overlay districts. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction 
VPC Vote 
12-0 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment 
Z-TA-3-24 and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by 
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay 
District, the areas of applicability, the overlay’s interaction with other policy plans, the 
proposed allowances for multifamily development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline 
for the proposal.  
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Tamala Daniels inquired about the locations of the properties 
presented as examples of sites that could be developed under the ARM Overlay. Mr. 
Rogers stated that the presented example properties are not in South Mountain and 
explained he does not know the exact locations. 
 
Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on conflicts with the ARM Overlay and the 
Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD). Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM Overlay 
allows commercial properties to develop under the Walkable Urban (WU) Code Transect 
T5:5 standards and explained the T5:5 maximum setback is less that the BAOD 
minimum setback. Mr. Rogers explained that work had been done on an amendment to 
the BAOD in the past but had never gone to City Council for approval. Committee

South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
September 10, 2024 
Page 2 of 3 
 
Member T. Daniels asked for clarification on why the amendment to the BAOD was not 
completed in the past and stated that there had been a Text Amendment (TA) to expand 
the WU Code’s applicability area. Mr. Rogers explained that he was not aware of the 
specific reasons why the BAOD amendment was not completed and explained that the 
TA to expand the WU Code’s applicability area ended up failing. 
 
Committee Member Marcia Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD, stated that 
she initiated the original effort to amend the BAOD, and explained that staff had informed 
her that other TAs would need to occur before the BAOD text amendment, resulting in 
the effort being paused. Committee Member Busching stated it is a good idea to include 
initialization of the BAOD amendment in the motion.  
 
Committee Member T. Daniels expressed confusion and frustration that the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) plan had been worked on for two years, but the BAOD 
conflicts had not been addressed, and explained that the City had tried to put forth a 
separate TA to reduce parking requirements for multifamily developments, but WU 
Code already addresses reduced parking requirements. Mr. Rogers explained that for 
staff to continue working on the BAOD amendment, the committee would need to 
include a recommendation to amend the BAOD. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not 
have information regarding the order in which TAs are brought to the VPC, explained 
that House Bill 2297 requires municipalities to implement new rules by the beginning of 
next year, and stated the ARM Overlay brought renewed attention to the conflicts with 
the BAOD. 
 
Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on whether resolving the 
conflicts between the BAOD and the WU Code would require the WU Code to 
supersede the BAOD. Committee Member Busching stated that the BAOD 
boundaries could be amended to end at 7th Street. 
 
Chair Marchuk asked for clarification on what process would be triggered if the 
committee recommended amending the BAOD. Mr. Rogers explained that such a 
recommendation would trigger an additional Text Amendment. 
 
Committee Member T. Daniels discussed the area within the South Central TOD 
Community Plan and the BAOD and asked about the boundaries of the BAOD. 
Committee Member Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD. Mr. Rogers 
explained that the City generally supports rezonings to the WU Code only if the site is 
within a TOD plan area, and clarified that sites governed by the WU Code within the 
BAOD cannot functionally develop due to conflicting regulations. 
 
Chair Marchuk inquired whether the committee would discuss the matter next month. 
Mr. Rogers stated that he would need to consult with his team to determine a timeline 
moving forward.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-3-24-Y 
September 10, 2024 
Page 3 of 3 
 
Committee Member Brownell suggested that the committee could also make a motion 
to modify the ARM Overlay to address the conflicts. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM 
Overlay is not likely to change much and a modification of the BAOD would likely need 
to be an amendment to the BAOD. Committee Member Brownell asked for confirmation 
that, if there was an R1-6 property where a second story was being added, this process 
would not be impacted. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the ARM Overlay will not change the 
process of permitting on an R1-6 property. 
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
MOTION 
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-
TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation with direction for staff to review the conflicts 
between the Baseline Area Overlay District, the WU Code, and the ARM Overlay district 
and that the Baseline Overlay District be modified to eliminate any conflicts. Committee 
Member Emma Viera seconded the motion.  
 
VOTE 
12-0, motion to recommend approval of motion to approve Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff 
recommendation with direction for staff to review the conflicts between the Baseline 
Area Overlay District, the WU Code, and the ARM Overlay district and that the Baseline 
Overlay District be modified to eliminate any conflicts passed with Committee Members 
Alvarez, Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, 
Shepard, Viera, Greathouse, and Marchuk in favor.