Attachment B - Staff Report - PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
39029 characters
*REVISED
Staff Report: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
*September 12, 2025
APPLICATION #:
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
EXISTING ZONING:
C-O
ACREAGE:
1.16
REQUEST:
1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement
of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
APPLICANT:
Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC
OWNER:
Slavicek Holdings, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendation.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On
July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Page 2 of 6
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear this request.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site consists of 1.16 gross acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue and is zoned C-O (Commercial Office-Restricted
Commercial). The applicant requested the following modification requests (*Enclosure
B):
•
Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan
and rendering.
•
Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
•
Deletion of Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
•
Modification to Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
* The conceptual site plan depicted the proposed second floor addition (957 square
feet), existing bay unit at mezzanine, and 33 parking spaces (*Enclosure G). The
conceptual elevations depicted a 24-foot-tall building with proposed slate roof tile, stone
veneer framing to match the existing stone, a metal roof, and decorative wood pop-outs
(*Enclosure H).
The appellant argues the PHO states in his findings for Request 4 “I support the
rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case, during which the
original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on
the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure." However, despite the
PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site
plan and renderings that provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are
appealing as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio (*Enclosure A).
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On March 10, 1980, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-323-79-6,
a request to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue from RE-35 (Single-Family Residence) to C-O (Commercial
Office-Restricted Commercial) (*Enclosure E). The proposed development was
intended for professional offices.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the case by a vote of 6-1 on, per
staff recommendation, on November 28, 1979 (*Enclosure K). The staff
recommendation indicated the following pros and cons of the case (*Enclosure L):
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Page 3 of 6
Pros:
•
The parcel is on a major street.
•
C-O zoning requires a site plan review.
Cons:
•
The property was reasonably developed under the RE-35 zoning.
•
Approval would lead to similar requests for lots on the west side of 24th Street
and worsen traffic congestion on this street.
•
Does not meet the recommended density designation of the 0-2 residential units
per the 1985 Urban Forms Plan.
*
The City Council approved the rezoning to C-O with four stipulations to ensure the
property remain compatible with the surrounding land uses (*Enclosure E).
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Ninety-seven letters of support were received, indicating the proposed
improvements will not cause any harm to the neighborhood, will not change its
character, and will provide architecture that will make the building look more iconic
(*Enclosure M).
Fifty-two letters of opposition were received, indicating concerns with the building
height, the applicant’s failure to obtain proper permits, the promotion of commercial
development in a residential neighborhood, the building not meeting building code
requirements, and privacy issues (*Enclosure N). A petition of opposition was
submitted, containing over 140 signatures, including some members who rescinded
their support for the case due to misinformation (*Enclosure O).
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units / acre
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning
Land Use
On-site:
C-O
Professional Office
North:
RE-35
Vacant Residential Lot
East:
(Across 24th Street):
PAD-6
Single-Family Residential
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Page 4 of 6
South
(Across Missouri Avenue): RE-35
Single-Family Residential
West:
RE-35
Single-Family Residential
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification
is to replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding
general conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site
plan depicts an office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The
proposed site plan depicts an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26 feet-2
inches measured to the top of ridge. Note that maximum building height is
addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not changing the building footprint so
there is no real change to the site plan. The building height is also not being
modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office
that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows
a new large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials
including stone veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that
match the existing building. The windows appear to align with the proposed
interior addition of office space to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation
features two new turrets with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level.
The east elevation shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with
windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north
elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the proposed
site plan will allow the development to comply with current ordinance standards
for this use.
3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction
is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Page 5 of 6
4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to
be denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language
requiring the building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was
intended to ensure that a one-story building was built on the site. The original
stipulation was approved by City Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes
reflect that the original plan for the development was revised from a two-story to
a one-story as a result of public concern related to the height of the building. In
addition, it was noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and they
would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was concerned
about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a height
limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-
story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the
building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an
additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at
some point since the original rezoning case approval. The applicant will be
required to submit construction documents to the Planning and Development
Department for approval and will therefore be required to comply with the
stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International Building Code requirements,
which will be addressed during the plan review process.
5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the
Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application
requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to
record this form and deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1.
THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2.
The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
3.
Construction to commence within 24 months.
2.
4.
That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
24 feet.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Page 6 of 6
3.
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE 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.
Enclosures:
A- Appeal Documents (3 pages)
B- Applicant’s Narrative for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (17 pages)
C- Aerial Map
D- Zoning Map
E- Approval Letter for Z-323-79-6 (1 page)
F- PHO Summary for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 from May 21, 2025 (7 pages)
G- Conceptual Site Plan, date stamped April 2, 2025
H- Conceptual Elevations, date stamped April 2, 2025 (3 pages)
I- Stipulated Site Plan for Z-323-79-6
J- Stipulated Elevations for Z-323-79-6
K- Planning Commission Summary for Z-323-79-6 (3 pages)
L- Staff Recommendation from original staff report for Z-323-79-6 (2 pages)
M- Letters of support for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (102 pages)
N- Letters of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (62 pages)
O- Petition of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (46 pages)
ENCLOSURE A
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2025\PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - Kurt Waldier - Opposition (taken
out of advisement)\REVISED APPEAL\Internal Cover_REVISED.doc
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
*REVISED – 7/8/2025
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER:
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION:
Northwest Corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO HEARING DATE:
May 21, 2025
(taken out from under
advisement on
July 7, 2025)
RECEIVED:
July 7, 2025
APPEALED BY:
Opposition
Applicant
APPEALED TO:
PLANNING
COMMISSION
*September 4, 2025
TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL
*October 15, 2025
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL:
PHONE:
Kurt Waldier
Gilbert Blilie PLLC
701 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
480-429-3061
RECEIPT NUMBER:
N/A
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The PHO states in Findings #4 that “I support the rational in the original decision” in
regards to the original zoning case during which the original applicant at the City
Council hearing stated there would be “no mezzanine on the inside and they would
not have two-story use of the structure.” However, despite the PHO’s concurrence,
the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and
renderings that provides for a potential use of a ‘mezzanine level’ which we are
appealing, as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.
TAKEN BY:
Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Adam Stranieri
Byron Easton
PHO Planner Asst – Teresa Garcia
PC Planner Asst – Camryn Thompson
PHO Secretary – Ruth Somoza
PC Secretary – Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
GIS Team
Raquel Moreno – Posting
City of Phoenix
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX
JUL O 7 2025
Planning & Development
Department
May 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Taken out from under
The PLANNING HEARING OFFICER agenda for Advisement on July 7, 2025 is attached.
The City Council May Ratify the Recommendation of the Planning Hearing Officer
on August 27, 2025, Without Further Hearing Unless:
•
A REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION is filed by
5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2025. (There is a $630.00 fee for hearings requested by the
applicant.)
Any member of the public may, within seven (7) days after the Planning Hearing
Officer's action, request a hearing by the Planning Commission on any application.
If you wish to request a hearing, fill out and sign the form below and return it to the
Planning and Development Department by 5:00 p.m. July 14, 2025.
APPEAL FORM
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
PH O-1-25--Z-323-79-6
APPLICATION NO.
Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
LOCATION OF APPLICATION PROPERTY
Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie PLLC
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
701 N 44th St
STREET ADDRESS:
Phoenix, AZ 85008
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
b OPPOSITION
□APPLICANT
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
EMAIL:
480-429-3061
TELEPHONE NO
BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE AS FOLLOWS:
Ma 21, 2025 - PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Tak4n out from undeJ
APPEALED FROM advisement July 7, 2025 PHO HEARING TO
* 9/4/2025
PC HEARING
DATE
DATE
SIGNATURE: .... V...,---=-:t=;:._j{A)
_...,J ..........
--- =-' -----
DATE: 7/7/2025
REASON FOR APPEAL:
The PHO states in Findings #4 that "I support the rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case
during which the original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on the inside and they would not have two-story use of
the structure." However. despite the PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and renderings that
provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are appealing. as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.
APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN PERSON AT THE 2ND FLOOR ZONING COUNTER, 200 W. WASHINGTON STREET, 602-262-7131, Option 6
PLANNER TAKING APPEAL: Gi
Copies to:
Case File
PHO Planner - Teresa Garcia
PHO Secretary- Ruth Somoza
*REVISED 7/8/2025
ENCLOSURE B
April 2, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Byron Easton
Planning Hearing Officer
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re:
Modification of Stipulations - Case No. Z-323-79 NWC 24th Street and Missouri Avenue, Phoenix
Dear Mr. Easton:
This firm represents Brett Slavicek (the Owner ) regarding the proposal to renovate their law office building located
at 5500 N. 24th Street in Phoenix, which is also known as Maricopa County APN 164-46-017
This
Property is a transitional piece between single-family residential and the Camelback Road corridor, which has
intensive development and height. Please see attached Exhibit A for an aerial view of the Property. As explained
herein, the proposed development requires modification of stipulations, which were approved 46 years ago per
rezoning case Z-323-79, to accommodate the minor renovation to the existing office building.
BACKGROUND
The current office is a well-known charming building along 24th Street that resembles a stone home with
architecturally distinct facades, copper turret, ample landscaping, flowers, and no signage. The C-O zoning for the
site was approved in 1980, and the structure was built in 1982. The low impact of the current use on the site, the
considerate design of the building, and care of the Property has created an asset to the neighborhood.
The original rezoning approval and exhibits are attached at Exhibit B.
PROPOSAL
Due to the age of the existing building and need to modernize, the Owner would like to improve the interior of the
building and offer additional office space (approximately 1,000 square feet beyond what exists in the current
mezzanine). These offices will stay within the current building footprint and existing building height of 24 feet. In
addition to interior improvements, the building exterior will keep its charm, while updating aged elements such as the
roof, which will convert to slate and add more copper, and additional landscaping.
The proposed site plan, elevation, and rendering are attached at Exhibit C.
STIPULATION MODIFICATION
To allow the proposed renovation of the Property, the Owner requests the following modification of stipulations
approved for Z-323-79:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL to be in GENERAL conformance with the site plan and rendering. ELEVATIONS
DATED_________, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
April 2, 2025
Page 2
Rationale: This stipulation has been modified to reflect the updated site plan and elevations for the
minor office renovation.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Rationale: The parking should be consistent with the current and more modern city of Phoenix
parking ratios, which are met with the proposal.
3. Construction commences within 24 months.
Rationale: This stipulation was accomplished with the original building and therefore is obsolete for
this request.
4. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL That it be one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed 24
feet.
Rationale: The intent of the original stipulation is still met with the height limitation of 24 feet, and
this modification would clarify and accommodate the proposed building renovation.
CONCLUSION
This minor office renovation will maintain the appeal and architectural integrity of the current building, while providing
more modern office building. The thoughtful proposal of the additional space positioned within the existing building
footprint and height continues the tradition of being a good neighbor.
Very truly yours,
WITHEY MORRIS BAUGH P.L.C.
By
Jason B. Morris
Attachments
ENCLOSURE C
ALLEY
E MARSHALL AVE
N 24TH ST
N 24TH ST
E MISSOURI AVE
N 23RD PL
PAD-6*
C-O*
PAD-8*
RE-35
mapservices@phoenix.gov
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
0
80
160
40
Feet ´
ENCLOSURE D
N 25TH ST
ALLEY
E MARSHALL AVE
N 24TH ST
N 24TH ST
E MISSOURI AVE
N 23RD PL
PAD-6*
C-O*
PAD-8*
RE-35
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
0
80
160
40
Feet ´
ENCLOSURE E
Mod
Del
Del
Mod
ENCLOSURE F
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Byron Easton, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Teresa Garcia, Planner I, Assisting
May 21, 2025
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO. 6
SUBJECT:
Application #:
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Location:
Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Zoning:
C-O
Acreage:
1.16
Request:
1)
Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2)
Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3)
Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding
commencement of construction.
4)
Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building
height.
Applicant:
Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner:
Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative:
Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, LLC
ACTIONS:
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took
the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took
the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval
with a modification and an additional stipulation.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Camelback East
Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this request.
DISCUSSION:
Jason Morris, representative of Withey Morris Baugh PLC, stated he is familiar
with the subject site and thought this would be a straightforward PHO request,
however, based on the amount of correspondence from the neighborhood, he
now thinks differently. He gave an overview of the site and his request to delete
Stipulations 1-4. He indicated the area was a target for urbanization in 1979 and
the City Council recognized the need for a professional office at this intersection.
He stated the current owner has owned the building since 2013 and has been a
good neighbor and has maintained the look of the building and landscaping.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 2
He noted the building and parking lot are often underutilized and surrounding
neighbors have used the parking lot when they have social gatherings. He stated
there are parking canopies along the north and west boundaries of the parking lot
and the building is pushed more towards the intersection of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue, thus creating separation from the surrounding residential uses.
He explained that the project will primarily be an interior remodel with just a few
exterior changes; they do not intend to increase the building height, change the
use, or add a second floor. He stated there is an existing mezzanine that meets
the definition of a mezzanine in the Zoning Ordinance and in addition, a City of
Phoenix Municipal Judge who heard the original Neighborhood Services violation
case. He explained that the applicant is proposing the addition of two and a half
meeting rooms to an existing space that contains a law library and a small
kitchen and the total square footage they are requesting includes an interior
mezzanine space addition of approximately 1,000 square feet.
Byron Easton, Planning Hearing Officer, asked Mr. Morris to clarify why the
existing 1,411 square foot mezzanine space is being incorporated into the new
total floor space.
Mr. Morris clarified there are three levels to the building: a small basement, the
main level and the existing mezzanine space, which has been in place for some
time. He stated their request is just to add an additional 1,035 square feet; there
will be no new mezzanine or new floor space added.
Mr. Easton asked if the total floor space is the sum of the new floor space and
the existing floor space. Mr. Morris confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Morris gave an overview of their request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding
general conformance to the site plan and rendering. The request is meant to
address the exterior changes proposed on the site. The project scope originally
focused on updating the roof to a slate roof and that warranted a larger remodel
of the building, including a new turret structure featuring a copper roof. He
reiterated the height of the building will remain under the approved 24-foot height
limit that was stipulated in the original rezoning case. He noted the mezzanine
level on the west side of the building will include windows that will be screened
by 4 levels of foliage and will face southwest towards Missouri Avenue. In
addition, the windows will be 5 feet above floor level to provide interior light and
views of the sky but will not provide views into the neighbor’s property adjacent to
the west.
He discussed his request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios by
noting the current parking standards are being met and the parking lot has rarely
been at maximum capacity. The parking lot is only full occasionally on the
weekends, when the owner has allowed neighbors to use it for personal
gatherings. He stated the renovations will be uniform with the neighborhood
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 3
character and a second floor will not be added. He clarified that the mezzanine is
not a second story, and the property owner does not intend to exceed 24 feet in
height. Mr. Morris stated regardless of how much misinformation had been
circulated in the neighborhood, they have received 78 letters and 91 signatures
in support of the PHO request.
Paul Gilbert, representative of Beus Gilbert, stated he spoke on behalf of several
neighbors in opposition. He gave an overview of the site and the history of the
rezoning case. He indicated the original zoning stipulations were intended to
protect the neighborhood and make lasting commitments to the surrounding
neighbors. He stated the applicant has not been the good neighbor that he
claims to be.
He noted the site is “spot zoned” and is the only commercial zoned property
within a 2,000-foot radius. He noted the surrounding density is low density
residential, therefore the use is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of
Residential 1 to 2 du/acre. He stated the original case faced public opposition,
and Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application.
The City Council minutes indicated the building was revised from a two-story
building to a one-story building with no mezzanine and the windows were not to
exceed 8 feet in height. He stated the applicant intended to change the parking
ratio to 1 space for every 300 square feet instead of 1 space for every 250
square feet. He noted the owner proceeded with construction of the second
story without obtaining the proper permits, even though the building was deemed
unsafe. He stated the only permit obtained was a roof permit, but no permits
were pulled for the other renovations. He stated the owner’s claims about the
existing mezzanine were not consistent with the narrative nor Mr. Morris’
presentation. He states the project will support multistory office uses along 24th
Street and encourage other property owners to start construction without
acquiring the appropriate permits first. He stated the parking lot has been full on
multiple occasions, prompting people to park in the surrounding neighborhood,
including himself when he’s attended a seminar in the building.
Mr. Morris expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gilbert. He stated some
neighbors who switched their position on the case were given incorrect
information. He reiterated the applicant is only adding 1,035 square feet, the site
plan Mr. Gilbert presented was incorrect, and they intend to meet the parking
standards per the Planning and Development Department. He stated he
appreciates and respects Mr. Gilbert’s opinion, but the applicant never made a
commitment to preserving the current appearance of the building, he only
committed to keeping the building appearance consistent with the character of
the neighborhood. He reiterated that a mezzanine is not the same as a new floor
or story. The applicant is remaining compliant with the definition of a mezzanine
and are not increasing the building height. He said the PHO hearing is not a
litigation regarding the non-permitted construction, but a way for the owner to
demonstrate compliance with City requirements.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 4
Brett Slavicek, the current property owner, stated he wanted more space to
accommodate his son going to law school. He noted that he was not advised the
proper permits were not obtained nor of the window height restriction. He
reiterated the definition of a mezzanine may be considered a floor, but not a story
and intends on meeting the 24-foot building height. He stated he is undergoing
the PHO process to correct the violations.
Peter Drake, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he is familiar with this case and has lived in the neighborhood for many years. He
stated there is no justification to change the building since the neighborhood has
not been subject to any residential to commercial conversions since 1980.
Bill Shubert, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he’s an active member of the neighborhood and has experience with contracting
and development. He stated the original applicant of the rezoning case was able
to convince some neighbors to withdraw their opposition because of the original
stipulations that were granted. He reiterated that modifying the stipulations and
doing unpermitted construction is no way to treat the neighborhood.
Dennis Clifford, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, lives
across the street from the site and does not see an increase in height. He stated
the members of the public that spoke in opposition to the request are
exaggerating the impact of the requests and the building modifications will not
negatively affect the neighborhood. He stated the owner is trying to
accommodate the neighbors and indicated he attended the same seminar Mr.
Gilbert attended and that was the only time the parking lot was full.
Greg Nadeau, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, said
the property owner is doing a great job of keeping the property clean. He stated
the new square footage added will not affect the building height and will enhance
the appearance of the building.
Mr. Easton asked Mr. Morris if he knew when the mezzanine was built. Mr.
Morris stated he remembers being inside the building in the 80’s and thinks it
was part of the original rezoning case. He stated the City Council minutes Mr.
Gilbert referred to were referring to a proposed building that was intended to be
30’ in height. Mr. Easton asked if they provided a rendering that indicated the
window height. Mr. Morris stated they did not. He asked Mr. Morris to elaborate
on how a mezzanine is not considered a floor or story. Mr. Morris said the
definition is laid out in the Zoning Ordinance.
He asked Mr. Morris if a mezzanine is not a story, then why is the applicant
requesting to delete Stipulation 4. Mr. Morris stated he is asking to work in the
confines of the height requirement.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 5
Mr. Easton stated he received a large amount of correspondence from members
of the public during the review period. He received several more letters and
emails directly leading up to the hearing and did not have an opportunity to
review all the correspondence. In addition, information was presented during the
hearing that he would like to verify, including the definition of mezzanine, any
past rulings related to the mezzanine and the permit history tied to this parcel. He
stated that he would take the case under advisement in order to consider the
multitude of arguments in opposition and support of the request, both as
presented at the hearing and received via mail and/or email.
FINDINGS:
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan
and rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The
modification is to replace the existing language with a standard language
stipulation regarding general conformance to the site plan and elevations.
The original stipulated site plan depicts an office building situated at the
southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts an 8,764
square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal
is not changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site
plan. The building height is also not being modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The
office that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that
include architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several
building additions including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers.
The west elevation shows a new large dormer with four new windows and
a variety of building materials including stone veneer, decorative wood
pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing building. The
windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets
with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation
shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at
mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north elevation
features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the
proposed site plan will allow the development to comply with current
ordinance standards for this use.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 6
3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of
construction is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met
and the zoning was subsequently vested with adoption of an Official
Supplementary Zoning Map.
4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is
recommended to be denied. The applicant requested a modification to
remove the language requiring the building to be built as one-story. The
existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a one-story building was
built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City Council on
March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of
public concern related to the height of the building. In addition, it was
noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and
they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was
concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story
with a height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the
rationale in the original decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain
one-story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story
to the building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will
add an additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was
constructed at some point since the original rezoning case approval. The
applicant will be required to submit construction documents to the
Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore be
required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and
International Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during
the plan review process.
5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to
the Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an
application requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to
require the applicant to record this form and deliver it to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.
1.
THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025 AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2.
The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 7
3.
Construction to commence within 24 months.
2.
4.
That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
24 feet.
3.
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE 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.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Saneeya Mir
at saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov or (602) 686-6461 or TTY: 7-1-1.
ENCLOSURE G
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE H
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE I
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Stipulated Site Plan
Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE J
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Stipulated Exhibit
Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE K
ENCLOSURE L
ENCLOSURE M
For support correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html
ENCLOSURE N
For opposition correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html