Attachment C - VPC Summaries - Z-TA-1-25-Y.pdf

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 29, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of 
related state requirements related to Middle Housing 
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and 
were heard concurrently. 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text 
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state 
legislation, details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the 
Middle Housing Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a 
summary of the timeline for the cases. 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Blackman asked for clarification about the applicability area. 
Mr. Grande provided additional information about the mechanism for applying the 
overlay to new subdivisions of 10 acres or more. 
Committee Member Strem asked about how compatibility of new buildings is 
determined. Mr. Grande stated that existing zoning and design review requirements 
would still be in place. 
Committee Member Fisher noted an issue about taxation and code enforcement for 
these lots since the new units will not be subdivided for ownership. 
ATTACHMENT C

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary – September 29, 2025 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Gasparro stated there are issues with infrastructure and parking. Mr. Grande 
noted that the City doesn’t have the ability to require more parking than one parking 
space per unit under this code. 
 
Committee Member Broberg asked if the City has an analysis of the potential 
universe of homes that could take advantage of this ordinance and if there is an 
understanding of the neighborhoods that will be impacted with potential parking 
issues. Mr. Grande noted that staff have been discussing with neighborhoods around 
downtown that have been concerned about potential impacts. 
 
Committee Member Strem asked if the State provided a rationale for passing this 
legislation. Chair Gasparro stated that many cities and states are passing similar 
laws to this to help with housing affordability. 
 
Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the penalty if a city does not comply with 
this law. Mr. Grande replied that the penalty could be that the City would lose control 
over regulation for middle housing completely. 
 
Committee Member Broberg asked for clarification on the lot coverage requirement. 
Mr. Grande replied that the lot coverage requirements for single-family lots would not 
be changed by this text. 
 
Committee Member Slobodzian asked about discussions with the Water Services 
Department about water supply. Mr. Grande stated that new water connections are 
reviewed by the Water Services Department and developments are required to have 
a water supply before they can be built, adding that sewer capacity is required in the 
same way. 
 
Committee Member Fisher asked if there was any consideration about other issues 
such as deeds and taxes that could delay construction. Mr. Grande noted that the 
legislation requires the City to allow middle housing through zoning and development 
codes, which is what this proposal does. 
 
Chair Gasparro asked about public comments that have been given in the meetings 
up to this point. Mr. Grande noted that the largest concern has been the impacts to 
historic neighborhoods near downtown. 
 
Committee Member Broberg asked if this legislation was crafted based on a bill in 
another state. Mr. Grande stated that he didn’t know. Chair Gasparro speculated 
that this legislation was copied and pasted from another state. 
 
Committee Member Fisher discussed the need for a mechanism to enforce changes 
to the tax requirements for new middle housing developments. Committee Member 
Broberg added that this creates an incentive to not disclose additional units on a lot 
to avoid tax issues.

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary – September 29, 2025 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Fisher asked if HOAs would have the ability to restrict middle 
housing. Mr. Grande stated that the law does not impact HOA requirements. 
 
Chair Gasparro commented about issues with school capacity that haven’t been 
considered in creating this legislation. 
 
Committee Member Jain stated that this is not a good response to the legislation 
and that the City could have tried to realize the goal of the legislation and revised the 
zoning regulations to do more than the minimum to incentivize additional housing. Mr. 
Grande reviewed some of the City’s housing-related policies, noting that this 
ordinance was focused on responding specifically to the legislation. 
 
Committee Member Strem stated that this will not create affordable housing. 
 
Chair Gasparro suggested that incentivizing housing could be done through 
demolition credits and fee waivers in the area where middle housing is desired by 
policymakers. 
 
Vice Chair Mager asked if this would likely result in demolition of buildings to 
construct middle housing developments. Mr. Grande stated that it is a question of 
economic feasibility for each lot, highlighting that the law would allow redevelopment 
or conversion of existing homes. 
 
Committee Member Fisher stated that the legislation is not well written. 
 
Committee Member Broberg highlighted that the City could provide a better 
response to what they are doing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix. 
 
Committee Member Fisher stated that this overlay should be limited to the one-mile 
radius that’s required, and it would be an issue if it were expanded. 
 
Chair Gasparro asked if the Committee’s comments will be conveyed to the Planning 
Commission. Mr. Grande stated that the comments drafted as minutes will be 
provided to the Planning Commission before the meeting on this item. 
 
Committee Member Jain asked for clarification about how the overlay will apply to 
new developments of 10 acres or more. Mr. Grande described the mechanism. 
 
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-1-25-Y 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 30, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing 
 
VPC DISCUSSION 
 
Committee Member Crews arrived during this item, bringing quorum to 11 members. 
 
Item Nos. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard 
concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text 
amendment and rezoning case and stated the items would be heard concurrently. Mr. 
Roanhorse stated that there had been previous public presentations on this text 
amendment and information was available online. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the 
background regarding House Bill 2721, details of the proposed zoning text to revise 
regulations and create the Middle Housing Overlay District. Mr. Roanhorse provided 
examples of Middle Housing and the applicability for residential development. Mr. 
Roanhorse presented the applicability to new subdivisions, limitations and the 
implications for Historic Preservation. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the boundary of the 
proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline for the cases. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Krietor asked for clarification on the northern boundary of the 
Central Business District. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the northern boundary is 
McDowell Road. Committee Member Krietor stated that the area shown does not 
appear to include the Alhambra Village, but Middle Housing would be important for the

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
September 30, 2025 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
area and the requirement for 20 percent in new subdivisions may not be applicable to 
Alhambra, as there are few, if any, sites available for new subdivision development. 
 
Chair Sanchez asked if an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) would allow for two-story 
construction on a lot. Mr. Roanhorse responded that Middle Housing allows duplexes, 
triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes would allow up to two stories. Committee Member 
Keyser commented that ADUs have typically been limited to one story, and the text 
amendment appears to be a change from past regulations, noting that he had seen two-
story accessory structures previously cited for noncompliance.  
 
Committee Member Ender asked whether the middle housing requirements would 
impact existing CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions). Mr. Roanhorse 
responded that the state legislation does not override private CC&Rs, which are 
enforced separately from city zoning regulations. Committee Member Ender asked 
about the availability of infrastructure and services to support Middle Housing 
development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that during the plan review process, City staff 
evaluate the availability of infrastructure and identify any necessary adjustments, and 
this information is provided to the applicant to ensure that new development can be 
supported appropriately. 
 
Committee Member Ender asked how parking would be accommodated for middle 
housing, particularly in neighborhoods where street parking is already common. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that parking can be provided on the lot being developed and 
noted that under the new text amendment, the city cannot require more than one off-
street parking space per dwelling unit, in alignment with the state’s middle housing 
legislation. 
 
Committee Member Harris asked if there will be design criteria in place to ensure that 
middle housing developments in existing neighborhoods maintain the appearance of 
single-family homes to maintain the architectural character of the area. Mr. Roanhorse 
responded that all new developments must comply with the design requirements 
outlined in the zoning ordinance.  
 
Committee Member DeGraffenried asked if middle housing could be designed to 
resemble single-family homes. Mr. Roanhorse responded that while the developments 
must follow established design guidelines, the intent is to ensure compatibility with 
surrounding structures. 
 
Committee Member Keyser asked about the applicability of historic preservation which 
raised a question on designated historic buildings and if existing parking would remain 
in place if the property were redeveloped. Mr. Roanhorse responded that if an 
entitlement for parking has already been granted in association with a site, it would 
remain valid unless the entitlement is formally changed.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
September 30, 2025 
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 Shore asked about the potential impact of Middle Housing on 
historic properties and if the new regulations could lead to increased demolitions and 
asked if there would be changes to front yards and lot configurations. Mr. Roanhorse 
responded that historic properties are not exempt from the middle housing requirements 
and the existing review procedures and demolition restrictions for historic properties 
would remain unchanged. 
 
Committee Member Crews commented that various duplex and triplex properties 
blend into existing neighborhoods and noted a specific example near 3rd Avenue and 
Thomas Road, where a house with multiple units had parking integrated into the 
existing design. Committee Member Crews stated that the legislative intent behind the 
Middle Housing requirements was to increase housing options, not to override local 
design authority. Mr. Roanhorse noted that the text amendment did not include any 
provisions that would preempt the City’s authority over design standards, and this 
remains a city responsibility, allowing communities to maintain architectural consistency 
and neighborhood character. 
 
Committee Member Velasco asked if the intent of the legislation was to increase 
housing supply which does not necessarily guarantee affordability. Mr. Roanhorse 
responded that the current housing shortage has driven a surge in residential 
development and that Middle Housing is one strategy to diversify the housing stock and 
provide a broader range of options to meet varying needs and conditions. 
 
Committee Member Crews stated that affordable housing remains a significant 
challenge in the community and there needs to be a broad discussion on the topic to 
explore several potential solutions. Committee Member Crews stated no definitive 
conclusions were reached during legislative discussions. Committee Member Crews 
expressed the importance of collaboration among various levels of government and 
community organizations in addressing housing affordability. Committee Member Crews 
stated the Village Planning Committee has a role in facilitating these discussions and 
contributing to potential solutions. Committee Member Crews expressed optimism that 
the introduction of Middle Housing could improve both pricing and availability, potentially 
to ease the affordability crisis. Committee Member Crews stated there is concern about 
the trend of constructing luxury-style short-term rentals, such as Airbnb properties, 
which may undermine affordability goals and stressed the need for closer monitoring of 
such developments. Committee Member Crews stated that affordability does not equate 
to availability, especially as more people continue to move to Phoenix and while current 
pricing may allow some individuals to purchase homes, addressing the broader issue of 
affordability will require significant and sustained involvement from multiple 
stakeholders. 
 
Committee Member Vallo asked about density bonuses for low-income housing. Mr. 
Roanhorse responded that there are incentives in place for development and noted that 
there are challenges due to the prevalence of market-rate developments, which often 
outpace affordable housing projects. Mr. Roanhorse said there are active projects

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
September 30, 2025 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
currently underway that do include affordable housing components and progress is 
being made but will take time before these units become readily available to the 
community. 
 
Committee Member Krietor commented that the Alhambra Village has demonstrated 
responsiveness in adapting to housing needs, particularly through its integration with 
light rail and collaboration with organizations such as UMOM and Catholic Charities and 
these efforts have helped provide housing options and opportunities for residents and 
stated that the Village Planning Committee has consistently supported initiatives that 
promote affordable housing. 
 
Committee Member Shore asked how TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) supports 
residential growth. Mr. Roanhorse responded that TOD is designed to facilitate active 
transportation by improving accessibility between residential areas and businesses 
along the light rail corridor which are specifically planned to maximize access and 
ridership while promoting a variety of residential options. 
 
Committee Member Keyser asked if the existing overlay districts would be extended 
and commented that potential adverse impacts of urban sprawl may result. Committee 
Member Keyser stated that sprawl affects transportation systems, energy consumption, 
and design efficiency which are issues that all planning committees should consider as 
development continues. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the city has implemented a 
shade policy, incorporated water conservation measures, and improved construction 
design standards, all of which contribute to more sustainable development practices. 
Committee Member Keyser commented that while improved irrigation systems are 
beneficial, they have limitations and noted the importance of monitoring and adjusting 
policies as new technologies emerge to ensure long-term effectiveness and 
sustainability. 
 
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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 9, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Vice Chair Paceley left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 16 members. 
 
Item Nos. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard 
concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text 
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state legislation, 
details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the Middle Housing 
Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline 
for the cases. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the scenario of an existing fourplex and if 
the owner would be required to keep it. Mr. Grande replied that the zoning would still 
allow single-family homes and would not require a fourplex to be constructed or 
retained. 
 
Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen asked for clarification regarding this proposal 
and the ADU text amendment. Mr. Grande replied that the ADU provision is separate 
and would still be allowed on lots with a single-family home.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary – September 9, 2025 
Z-TA-1-25-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 Guevar asked if the City had looked into potential issues with 
lenders who could see these properties as multifamily after this overlay is approved. Mr. 
Grande replied that he hadn’t heard of that concern, noting that the zoning districts 
would retain the label of Single-Family Residence District. 
 
Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that this would apply on any 
individual lot within 1 mile of downtown. Mr. Grande replied that it would. Mr. Whitesell 
stated a desire to communicate to the City that they should advocate to the State 
Legislature for creating an exemption for historic properties. Chair Fischbach stated 
that since this is information only, the Committee should not take a formal vote on any 
motion, encouraging Committee Members to contact their representatives at the City 
level to express their concerns. 
 
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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 8, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No quorum.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 16, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of 
related state requirements related to Middle Housing      
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were 
heard together.  
 
Committee Member Leon Thomas left during this item bring the quorum to 8 members 
present. 
 
One member of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text 
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state legislation, 
details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the Middle Housing 
Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline 
for the cases. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Members asked questions regarding various aspects of the Proposed Text 
Amendment and Middle Housing Overlay District including clarification regarding the 
boundary of the Middle Housing Overlay District, its impact on historic properties, the 
ability to demolish existing housing and replace with middle housing, the provision 
regarding middle housing in new subdivisions, and the State Legislature’s rationale for 
passing the bill. Mr. Kuhfuss provided answers to those questions.

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
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 
 
Beverly Richards asked for clarification as to whether middle housing could be 
constructed outside of the Overlay District. Mr. Kuhfuss provided clarification.

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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 2, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of 
related state requirements related to Middle Housing 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Agenda Item 6 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 7 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases 
and were heard together. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State 
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these 
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle 
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721. 
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the 
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the 
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment 
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr. 
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one 
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown 
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply 
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt 
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review 
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition 
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback 
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development 
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of 
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow 
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not 
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing 
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in 
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or 
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision 
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the 
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key 
takeaways.  
 
Questions from Committee: 
Chair Steven Bowser asked if the provision to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 
percent of the lots within a new subdivision of 10 acres or more is citywide. Mr. 
Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Bowser stated that all Arizona State Land 
Department (ASLD) auctioned parcels are over 10 acres, noting that this provision 
would impact the Desert View Village, unless developers plat subdivisions less than 10 
acres at a time. Chair Bowser asked if middle housing is required to be provided. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that middle housing would have to be allowed on at least 20 
percent of the lots within the subdivision to comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano 
added that the developer could still choose to not build middle housing on those lots. 
Mr. Zambrano stated that the developer will tell the City which lots within their 
subdivision they want to apply the MH Overlay District, and then staff would send a 
supplementary zoning map to the City Council to adopt. Chair Bowser asked if middle 
housing could be clustered together within the subdivision. Mr. Zambrano responded 
affirmatively, noting that there are no restrictions on how the MH-zoned lots have to be 
dispersed throughout the subdivision. Chair Bowser asked for clarification that the City 
cannot require fire sprinklers. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Zambrano 
stated that there were recent updates to the Phoenix building code, noting that they 
were also following this legislation, and the updates to the building code would address 
any safety concerns.  
 
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked if the opt-in provision for new subdivisions of 10 acres 
or more citywide is optional. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law requires any 
new subdivision of 10 acres or more to allow middle housing on 20 percent of the lots 
within the subdivision.  
 
Committee Member Joseph Barto stated that “must allow” does not sound like a 
mandate. Committee Member Barto stated that it sounds like an allowance. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that it is a requirement of the State law.  
 
Vice Chair Lagrave asked if a developer can opt to not build middle housing within a 
subdivision. Mr. Zambrano responded that the developer can opt to not build middle 
housing, but the zoning must still allow for it on 20 percent of the lots within the 
subdivision. Vice Chair Lagrave asked if a new homeowners association (HOA) has to 
comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs can have stricter

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
restrictions than the City. Mr. Zambrano added that the City does not enforce HOA 
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). 
 
Committee Member Richard Carlucci asked why the City did not extend the MH 
Overlay District around high-capacity transit stops, noting that the data center text 
amendment referenced the need for higher-density housing around these areas. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that the MH Overlay District is more specific to single-family 
subdivisions. Mr. Zambrano added that there are adopted transit oriented development 
(TOD) and transit oriented community (TOC) policy plans that provide guidance for 
future rezoning requests to rezone to the Walkable Urban (WU) Code within these 
policy plan areas, which does not have any density limitations. Committee Member 
Carlucci asked if there was consideration to extend the MH Overlay District to other 
areas of the city in order to help increase the supply of housing and bring down housing 
costs. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure since he was not involved in the 
drafting of this text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that the proposed text 
amendment is trying to comply with the State law requirements. Mr. Zambrano added 
that the MH Overlay District does apply citywide for 20 percent of the lots in any new 
subdivision of 10 acres or more. Committee Member Carlucci asked how many single-
family lots are within one mile of Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded that he 
was not sure. Mr. Zambrano stated that there are a lot of single-family lots within the 
area, including some historic districts. Mr. Zambrano stated that the State law does not 
override existing historic design review requirements. Committee Member Carlucci 
stated that the same development standards as a single-family home does not do a lot 
to provide more housing, noting that much smaller units would have to be squeezed into 
the building envelope. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would depend on a case-by-case 
basis. Mr. Zambrano displayed and discussed the typical lot setback exhibit. Committee 
Member Carlucci stated that the City seems to be doing the bare minimum to comply 
with the State law, noting that Phoenix is one of the fastest growing cities that needs 
more housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City is working on other efforts to 
increase housing options, such as the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) text amendment 
and expanding the WU Code around transit corridors. Mr. Zambrano added that the 
State legislature is passing legislation simultaneously, so the City has to keep up with 
the legislation as well. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave disagreed with Committee Member Carlucci. Vice Chair Lagrave 
stated that Phoenix is a wide open, western place. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that 
Phoenix is not New York City, nor Baltimore, nor Chicago. Vice Chair Lagrave stated 
that Phoenix is a spread-out city with a certain lifestyle. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that 
he does not want houses crammed into the city that creates a concrete jungle. Vice 
Chair Lagrave stated that he wants the space to have trees and homes where families 
can be raised.  
 
Committee Member David Kollar stated that it is a moot point since the State law 
already passed. Committee Member Kollar asked for clarification that if the text 
amendment does not get passed by the end of the year, then all City restrictions go 
away. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the State law included a 
severe penalty clause that stated if the regulations are not adopted by January 1, 2026,

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
then middle housing will be allowed on all lots zoned for single-family residential use 
citywide, without any limitations. Mr. Zambrano added that “without any limitations” 
could mean without any zoning controls whatsoever.  
 
Chair Bowser asked for clarification that a subdivision of 10 acres or more that applies 
the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots would not be heard by the Committee. 
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would be without any public 
hearing. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff would send a supplementary zoning map to the 
City Council to adopt. Mr. Zambrano added that subdivisions in other areas of the city, 
outside of the areas applicable to the State law, could still request to rezone to the MH 
Overlay District through the public hearing process.  
 
Committee Member Carlucci asked if the subdivision would have to be of 10 acres or 
more. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is a request to rezone to the MH Overlay 
District, it does not have to be of 10 acres or more.  
 
Chair Bowser stated that there are patio homes that were built prior to the 1980s along 
Scottsdale Road south of McDonald Drive that seem to be a middle housing option. 
Chair Bowser stated that they are still quite nice and are higher-density and affordable 
homes. Chair Bowser stated that they could be a great product if done well 
architecturally. Mr. Zambrano responded that part of the text amendment is also 
amending Section 507 Tab A of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to update the Individual 
Unit Design Standards to also apply to middle housing and require design review of 
middle housing.  
 
Committee Member Jason Israel asked if ADUs would still be permitted. Mr. 
Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Zambrano stated that the text amendment is 
also amending sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance so ADUs would only be 
permitted on a lot with one primary dwelling unit. Committee Member Israel asked 
where the City is at within the timeline. Mr. Zambrano responded that the cases would 
be voted on by the Planning Commission in October and the City Council in November.  
 
Committee Member Kollar asked if it is common for the State legislature to play a 
hand in local zoning regulations. Mr. Zambrano responded that it has been more 
common recently. 
 
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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 8, 2025 
Proposal  
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised 
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle 
Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other 
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to 
ensure proper application of related state requirements 
related to Middle Housing 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item Nos. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard 
concurrently. 
 
Three members of the public registered to speak on the item, with one in opposition. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION: 
 
Chris DePerro, with the City of Phoenix Planning Department (PDD), provided a 
presentation on the City’s Middle Housing Text Amendment and accompanying Overlay 
District. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be 
reviewed first to provide context which would establish the Middle Housing Overlay 
District in areas of central Phoenix. Mr. DePerro explained that this initiative stems from 
House Bill 2721, passed during the 2024 legislative session, which requires all Arizona 
cities with populations over 75,000 to allow middle housing under certain conditions. Mr. 
DePerro stated that the Middle Housing, as defined in the legislation, includes duplexes, 
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes, up to a maximum of four units per lot. Mr. 
DePerro emphasized that the legislation was state-mandated, not locally initiated and 
outlined several requirements of the bill, including the requirement to allow up to four 
dwelling units per single-family lot in certain areas of central Phoenix. Mr. DePerro 
explained that at least 20 percent of the lots in any new subdivision of 10 contiguous 
acres or more must permit middle housing. Mr. DePerro stated Middle Housing must be 
treated no more restrictively than single-family housing in terms of permitting, review, 
and development standards. Mr. DePerro further explained restrictions that the City may 
not impose, including requirements for fire sprinklers, owner occupancy, or more than 
one off-street parking space per unit. Mr. DePerro stated the City also may not 
discourage rental housing or impose regulations more restrictive than those applied to 
single-family dwellings. Mr. DePerro emphasized that if Phoenix fails to adopt the 
required regulations by January 1, 2026, middle housing would automatically be allowed

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
without limitation on all single-family residential lots in the city. Mr. DePerro then 
described Text Amendment Z-TA-12-5-Y, which revises zoning regulations to comply 
with state law, and Rezoning Case Z-3-25-4-7-8, which applies the overlay district to the 
one-mile area surrounding downtown Phoenix as required. Mr. DePerro explained that 
the overlay district would function in addition to the existing underlying zoning, allowing 
either the density permitted by zoning or four units, whichever is greater. Mr. DePerro’s 
presentation included maps outlining the overlay district boundary, which follows a one-
mile radius around the designated downtown core. Mr. DePerro said the Federal 
aviation noise contours exclude certain areas from the overlay due to restrictions on 
residential density near the airport. Mr. DePerro clarified that historic preservation 
regulations remain unchanged, including demolition restrictions and review procedures 
for historic properties. Mr. DePerro also noted that recent code updates extended the 
review stay for eligible properties from 30 days to 60 days. Mr. DePerro provided 
development examples on typical R1-6 lots, including setbacks, building envelopes, and 
limitations on lot coverage. Visual examples of duplex and fourplex designs were shown 
to illustrate how middle housing could be integrated within existing neighborhoods. Mr. 
DePerro stressed that the proposal does not permit subdivision of lots beyond existing 
entitlements, nor does it allow more units than authorized by law. Mr. DePerro provided 
an example demonstrating how 20 percent of lots would be designated for middle 
housing and mapped with the overlay district. Mr. DePerro emphasized that subdivision 
design could accommodate varied lot sizes or locations for middle housing. Mr. DePerro 
reviewed the proposed timeline for Planning Commission for information in September 
and recommendation was scheduled for October 6. Mr. DePerro stated the City Council 
will consider action on November 5, 2025. Mr. DePerro provided a summary and noted 
the middle housing requirement is state-mandated, must be applied within one mile of 
downtown and to 20 percent of new subdivisions over 10 acres and the City faces the 
risk of losing zoning controls entirely if regulations are not adopted by the state 
deadline. 
Mr. DePerro directed attendees to additional resources at phoenix.gov/middlehousing 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE: 
 
Committee Member Warnicke asked if the driving force behind the legislation was the 
historical shift away from middle housing. Mr. DePerro responded that while he did not 
want to speak directly to the legislature’s intent, many consultants and proponents 
suggest that the law is a way to increase density in areas where it has become difficult. 
Mr. DePerro acknowledged that there are broader policy discussions surrounding the 
issue, but he could not say with certainty why the legislature chose this approach. 
 
Committee Member Warnicke stated that historically there had been middle housing, 
but that it is no longer permitted, and noted that multifamily housing is not currently 
allowed in single-family residential zoning. Mr. DePerro responded that multifamily 
housing is not permitted in single-family zoning districts. Committee Member Warnicke 
asked when multifamily development is allowed. Mr. DePerro responded that multifamily 
zoning is typically applied through separate zoning designations and is defined as a lot 
that allows more than one primary unit. Committee Member Warnicke stated that this

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 3 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
would include duplexes and apartments. Committee Member Warnicke noted that the 
state requires the provisions to apply within one mile of the Central Business District, 
but the definition of that area varies. Mr. DePerro responded that neighborhoods such 
as Willo, La Hacienda, and Alvarado, while zoned R1-6 or R1-10, technically allow 
duplexes under certain lot conditions, which makes them multifamily zones. Mr. DePerro 
stated that those districts only allow duplexes on larger lots and that this provision does 
not actually increase density. Committee Member Warnicke confirmed that duplexes are 
still permitted under those designations and suggested that they could therefore be 
considered multifamily zoning. Mr. DePerro responded and noted that point but 
explained that the state law requires the city to apply the middle housing provisions to 
lots zoned for single-family uses which includes the areas in question. Committee 
Member Warnicke expressed frustration, stating that these lots already allow multifamily 
development and that applying the law in this manner threatens historic neighborhoods 
and noted that historic designation can be lost if more than 50 percent of contributing 
homes are removed. Committee Member Warnicke said that the overlay boundary 
appeared to cut into La Hacienda while avoiding his own property. Mr. DePerro stated 
that the city’s text amendment is intended to comply with state law, regardless of 
whether the legislature considered impacts on historic neighborhoods. Committee 
Member Warnicke stated that the state law only applies to single-family residential 
properties, and reiterated his position that some of these areas should be classified as 
multifamily. Mr. DePerro stated that he and Mr. Warnicke appeared to disagree on that 
interpretation. Committee Member Warnicke asked about the 20 percent multifamily 
requirement for subdivisions. Mr. DePerro responded that the requirement applies only 
to new subdivisions of 10 acres or more, typically in areas such as north Phoenix, and 
not to existing neighborhoods. Committee Member Warnicke asked if this meant there 
was no 20 percent cap on middle housing in neighborhoods like Willo. Mr. DePerro 
responded that there is no such cap and that, if the overlay were approved, any eligible 
lot within Willo could potentially develop as middle housing, including fourplexes. 
Committee Member Warnicke concluded by stating that this would allow widespread 
redevelopment in historic areas. Mr. DePerro agreed that this was correct under the 
proposed application of the state law. 
 
Committee Member Procaccini asked what would happen if the City chose to reduce 
the size of the Central Business District, noting that it might be considered beneficial in 
some cases to shrink the designated downtown area. Mr. DePerro responded that there 
are two potential issues with that approach first, the state law specifies that the 
applicable Central Business District boundaries are those that were designated as of 
September 14, 2024 and no changes can be made at this point. Mr. DePerro stated 
second, the law also contains a provision prohibiting cumulative or individual actions by 
municipalities that interfere with housing development. Mr. DePerro said that if city were 
to attempt to shrink the boundaries, it could be considered noncompliant under that 
provision and that the September 14, 2024 designation date is the controlling factor. 
 
Committee Member Wagner stated that under normal procedure, text amendments 
are presented to Village Planning Committees for information only, followed by at least 
a month to review and provide input and in this case, however, the process was not 
being followed. Committee Member Wagner said that the proposed text amendment is

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 4 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
178 pages long and was only received by the committee a few days prior to the 
meeting, which made it very difficult for members to adequately review the information 
and further expressed that the amendment would greatly benefit from committee input 
and questioned why the committee was not being given that opportunity. 
Joshua Bednarek, PDD Director, responded that it was a valid concern and explained 
that the planning staff were attending all Village Planning Committee meetings this 
month to provide information and ensure that word about the new law was reaching the 
community. Mr. Bednarek stated that the language presented in the amendment reflects 
the minimum requirements of state law, leaving little room for adjustment and the City’s 
priority is compliance with the law and meeting the statutory deadline requiring City 
Council action later this year. Mr. Bednarek expressed that while staff values feedback, 
the purpose of these presentations are primarily informational and offered to provide his 
contact information to any committee members or members of the public who wished to 
ask further questions. Committee Member Wagner stated that while she appreciated the 
explanation, she remained concerned. Committee Member Wagner shared the concern 
that neighborhoods had been in contact with other cities, which were approaching the 
legislation differently and actively working to mitigate its impacts. Committee Member 
Wagner emphasized that the City of Phoenix was not necessarily taking the bare 
minimum approach, and that this issue warranted more public discussion with Village 
Planning Committees. Committee Member Wagner also questioned the stated deadline, 
noting that City staff had known about the legislation since February 2024, according to 
emails. Committee Member Wagner said this with the accessory dwelling unit 
legislation, which passed in May and had to be implemented by January 2025 and in 
the case of the middle housing bill, she said, cities were given an additional year to act. 
Committee Member Wagner expressed frustration that the committee was being told 
there was no more time to review the amendment, despite Phoenix having had 
significantly more time to prepare. 
 
Committee Member Kleinman asked for clarification regarding the timeline of the 
legislation and stated his understanding that the State of Arizona passed the bill during 
the 2024 legislative session, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. Committee 
Member Kleinman noted that cities are required to adopt local regulations by that same 
date and asked whether the City of Phoenix had the authority to extend or delay the 
effective date, or whether it must begin enforcement on January 1, 2026. Committee 
Member Kleinman explained that his concern was twofold if the state legislature 
amends the law during the upcoming session, it would be problematic for the city to take 
action prematurely and then be unable to undo its decisions. Committee Member 
Kleinman suggested that, at a minimum, the city should consider delaying 
implementation until any potential state-level amendments are resolved. Mr. Bednarek 
responded that the idea of delaying the effective date had been suggested and was 
referred to the City’s Law Department and the initial response was that the law is clear 
in requiring implementation on January 1, 2026. Mr. Bednarek noted that delaying 
implementation could put the city at risk of being found noncompliant and added that the 
matter could be further discussed with the Law Department and potentially with the City 
Council. 
 
Committee Member Rodriguez stated that she supports the house bill overall but

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 5 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
expressed disappointment that it did not extend further and explained that her home, 
built in 1932, was located just outside of the overlay area. Committee Member 
Rodriguez stated that she would like the opportunity to redevelop her property into 
housing that contributes to the city’s future, which she considered part of building a 
better history. Committee Member Rodriguez noted that her neighborhood lacks the tax 
incentives, gated communities, safe bike lanes, and other infrastructure present in other 
areas, while still experiencing challenges such as cut-through traffic from the reverse 
lanes, she stated that the bill does not go far enough and encouraged the city to be 
bolder in extending its provisions. Committee Member Rodriguez added that other 
cities, such as Portland, have implemented similar policies without significant impacts 
from demolitions, and she offered to share those examples with the committee. 
 
Committee Member Wagner stated that the city was aware of legislation introduced in 
the prior session seeking to exempt historic districts and emphasized that while she 
supports rental housing, she also values maintaining historic districts, which have been 
carefully preserved for decades. Committee Member Wagner noted that another 
attempt to exempt historic districts may be made in the upcoming legislative session 
and stated there is concern that the current 178-page text amendment appeared to be a 
rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a simple overlay as previously described. 
Committee Member Wagner questioned why the committee had not been told earlier 
that such extensive changes would be included and asked why multifamily provisions 
were being revised when the legislation was directed at single-family zoning. Mr. 
DePerro responded that he had described the amendment as involving extensive 
revisions in several prior presentations and that this approach was taken out of caution 
due to the statutory requirement that single-family and middle housing be treated 
identically. Mr. DePerro stated in many parts of the Zoning Ordinance, the two are 
treated differently, with middle housing subject to more restrictive provisions therefore, 
significant revisions were necessary to bring them into alignment. Mr. DePerro clarified 
the mechanism for implementation and stated that the text amendment itself does not 
grant entitlements but the following agenda item the zoning case would apply the Middle 
Housing Overlay (MH) to properties. Mr. DePerro stated the text amendment 
establishes the framework and creates the overlay district, but actual entitlement would 
only occur through a rezoning action and noted that the opt-in provision for 10-acre 
subdivisions functions similarly, requiring a property owner to request the overlay before 
it is applied. Committee Member Wagner responded that her neighborhood had held 
several meetings with the PDD and had repeatedly asked for a seat at the table during 
the drafting of the amendment. Committee Member Wagner expressed frustration that 
those requests were not accommodated and that the committee was now being asked 
to consider the amendment at the last minute without sufficient time for review. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 
 
Mr. Will Kerwin introduced himself as a resident on Willetta Street stated that he lives 
in a duplex where two different houses are located on the same lot and considered a 
plan to rent out the back unit once it became unoccupied, and asked if that would still be 
possible under the proposed ordinance. Mr. DePerro responded that, without knowing 
the exact circumstances, nothing being proposed should change an existing entitlement

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 6 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
and confirmed that if the second residence is currently legal, then the entitlement 
remains. Mr. DePerro invited Mr. Kerwin to send him specific details by email so staff 
could research the property’s history and provide a clear response and emphasized that 
the ordinance was intended to add entitlement for additional units, not take away 
existing rights. Mr. Kerwin shared a neighborhood concern regarding an individual who 
built a multi-story structure, which appeared to have been left unfinished and that 
residents suspected the intent was to drive up property taxes to force buyouts, though 
he acknowledged this may not be true. Mr. DePerro replied that if the structure was built 
without permits, that would be a code enforcement issue and asked for clarification 
about whether the construction was permitted. Mr. Kerwin clarified that he was raising 
the example hypothetically and asked whether, under the ordinance, someone could 
legally construct a multi-story building for speculative purposes. Mr. DePerro explained 
that the ordinance did not increase allowable building height, setbacks, or envelope 
limits and the intention of the changes only addressed the number of units allowed on a 
lot. Mr. DePerro stated that the ordinance would not permit a five-story building in a 
single-family neighborhood, since the existing height and setback limits would still apply. 
Mr. Kerwin acknowledged the clarification but asked whether there was a way to 
mitigate the impact of increased property taxes on neighbors. Mr. DePerro responded 
that property taxes are difficult to predict and stated that values can both rise and fall, 
referencing the Great Recession when values plummeted. Mr. DePerro stated that the 
ordinance had been crafted with a focus on zoning and entitlements, and broader 
economic impacts such as property taxation had not been a primary consideration. 
 
Mr. Mike Mark introduced himself as a resident on Holly Street and stated that he had 
several questions and asked whether the city currently knew how many lots would be 
impacted by the ordinance, noting that there are empty lots that could be targeted. Mr. 
Mark added that estimating the number of eligible lots would be helpful, since it was 
likely that developers would begin to purchase such properties to take advantage of the 
new entitlements. Mr. DePerro responded that the estimate was on a graphic he had 
previously shared, but he did not have it readily available at the meeting and apologized 
and stated that he could provide the figure later. Mr. DePerro confirmed that the 
calculation was included in staff’s analysis and agreed that vacant lots zoned 
appropriately would be among the first likely to be impacted. Mr. Mark asserted that this 
suggested a likely targeting of properties for redevelopment and asked whether the 
city’s Middle Housing website included real-life examples of duplexes, triplexes, or 
fourplexes on single-family lots. Mr. DePerro responded that the photos shown in the 
presentation were real examples from Phoenix and had been used to illustrate what the 
ordinance would proceed. Mr. Mark confirmed that the images were taken from within 
Phoenix, including areas near a neighborhood dog park in the area of 3rd Avenue and 
Culver Street, but emphasized his concern that the ordinance appeared punitive toward 
historic properties. Mr. Mark expressed that the proposal seemed almost surgically 
targeted to impact historic neighborhoods in particular and added that he wished the 
policy could instead be mirrored so that his neighborhood would be affected rather than 
historic districts, which he believed should be spared from such negative impacts. 
 
Joan Gresch stated she is a longtime resident of the area since 1977 and had 
concerns for the committee regarding historic preservation and the impact of recent

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 7 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
state laws. Ms. Gresch shared her personal experience restoring a historic home from 
the 1920s in downtown Phoenix with her husband while earning less than $20,000 per 
year at the time. Ms. Gresch stated that the Historic Preservation program provided tax 
incentives and guidelines that allowed them and others to rehabilitate historic properties 
appropriately, contributing to the revitalization of the neighborhood. Ms. Gresch 
expressed concern that recent state interventions have undermined these protections 
and threatened the progress made over decades. Ms. Gresch urged the city to support 
residents if legal action arises, emphasizing the emotional and financial investment her 
family has made in preserving the historic character of their home and neighborhood. 
Mr. DePerro responded that the current law, while allowing up to four units on a 
property, does not remove existing historic preservation protections and stated that the 
design review processes and other safeguards under both state law and city plans 
would remain in place. Ms. Gresch acknowledged this clarification but emphasized that 
the broader context and discussion about preserving historic districts remain critical. 
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED, COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: 
 
Committee Member Procaccini asked whether the city’s website allowed residents to 
type in their address to determine if their property fell within the proposed middle 
housing overlay area, noting that he lived near the boundary and was unable to tell. Mr. 
DePerro responded that the website did provide that function and that members of the 
public could also email him directly with an address and he would confirm the 
information, often faster than the online tool. 
 
Committee Member Wagner asked how many square miles were included in the 
middle housing overlay area shown on the map. Mr. DePerro responded that he did not 
have the exact figure memorized but estimated that the area covered between five and 
six square miles in and around downtown. Mr. DePerro noted that this represented a 
small portion of Phoenix overall, which spans approximately 520 square miles. 
Committee Member Wagner said that, while the overlay represented only five to six 
square miles, it was still a significant area when viewed in comparison to the entire city. 
 
Committee Member Kleinman expressed concern about the impact of increasing 
housing in historic neighborhoods and asked whether the city could mandate that new 
housing developments, specifically those referenced in the middle of the presentation 
on page 92, be designated as workforce or affordable housing. Committee Member 
Kleinman emphasized the need to prevent historic homes from being replaced by high-
cost fourplexes potentially used for short-term rentals, such as Airbnb. Committee 
Member Kleinman asked if there were any mechanisms to limit high-cost townhouses 
and short-term rentals in these historic areas. Mr. DePerro responded that both short-
term rentals and affordable housing requirements are largely restricted by state law. Mr. 
DePerro explained that the city has minimal control over short-term rentals and cannot 
require affordable housing in zoning cases or stipulations and stated that while the city 
can incentivize affordable housing, it cannot mandate it and that the city is exploring 
other potential approaches to mitigate community concerns while remaining compliant 
with state law, although no solutions had been finalized. Mr. DePerro emphasized that 
the city is listening to feedback and seeking ways to balance middle housing

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 8 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
requirements with the preservation of historic districts. 
 
Committee Member Wagner stated that, in line with Committee Member Kleinman’s 
concerns about workforce housing, a neighboring property near the dog park as 
formerly mentioned recently sold for $2.6 million. Committee Member Wagner noted 
that this example indicates the development is unlikely to provide affordable housing. 
 
Committee Member Perez asked whether any language incentivizing affordable or 
workforce housing had been considered in the text amendment and asked if such 
measures could be incorporated as a potential avenue for encouraging these types of 
housing. Mr. DePerro responded that while such incentives could potentially be 
considered, they had not been included in the current text amendment and stated that 
the language as written represents the minimum required to comply with state law. Mr. 
DePerro acknowledged the concerns about providing additional incentives or 
protections but emphasized that state law does not require these provisions, and their 
absence is consistent with legal compliance. 
 
Committee Member Kleinman expressed frustration with the city’s limited flexibility 
under state law and recalled past experiences in which the city initially faced restrictions 
but eventually implemented changes, noting that simply complying with state law does 
not preclude the city from exploring measures that could benefit Phoenix. Committee 
Member Kleinman stressed that fear of potential lawsuits should not prevent proactive 
efforts to improve outcomes for the city and its residents. Mr. Bednarek responded 
noting that any action outside the boundaries of state law could trigger complaints to the 
Attorney General under State Statute 1487, potentially putting $850 million in state 
funding at risk. Mr. Bednarek clarified that such disputes do not automatically go to 
court and follow a 30-day process. Committee Member Kleinman stated that the city 
has previously navigated conflicts with state law in other contexts, such as fair wages, 
and argued that avoiding any attempt to push the envelope in this case seems overly 
cautious. Committee Member Kleinman emphasized that his comments were meant as 
an opinion and not a directive, expressing his perspective that the city could explore 
creative approaches without undue risk. Mr. Bednarek responded stating that he took 
no offense to the comments and appreciated the perspective. 
 
Committee Member Rodriguez shared her perspective on affordable housing and the 
overall benefits of increasing housing stock and invited fellow committee members and 
staff to collaborate on initiatives aimed at promoting affordable housing. Committee 
Member Rodriguez emphasized that increasing housing availability can make housing 
more accessible in general and stated differing viewpoints on historic preservation but 
expressed the belief that denser, thoughtfully designed housing can contribute positively 
to the community’s history. Committee Member Rodriguez also highlighted that parts of 
Phoenix, including this area, benefit from some of the city’s most successful public 
transportation systems and bike lanes and suggested that adding new housing, 
regardless of affordability designation, could help reduce overall housing costs by 
increasing supply. Committee Member Rodriguez stated it is important to encourage 
broader collaboration and engagement from committee members on housing issues.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 9 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Warnicke commented on the public comments and expressed 
appreciation for the eloquence of the previous speaker and said she is absolutely right 
in what we are facing is an existential threat to our historic neighborhoods. Committee 
Member Warnicke stated the idea of launching 5,000 homes into these areas is 
alarming and has asked the city how many historic homes are at risk, and still had not 
received an answer. Committee Member Warnicke stated if we estimate 5,000 homes 
and allow fourplexes on each, that’s 20,000 residences replacing 5,000 single-family 
homes. Committee Member Warnicke stated that in the past year alone, over 20,000 
apartments have come online, and there’s another 20,000 expected next year and there 
is already a glut. Committee Member Warnicke stated this attack on historic 
neighborhoods is not only unnecessary it is absurd and will not achieve its intended 
goals. Committee Member Warnicke stated these lots will be subdivided or made 
available for affordable purchase and they will be expensive, likely short-term rentals 
like Airbnbs and this is very upsetting. Committee Member Warnicke stated there will be 
a lawsuit but not against the state and the state can pass these laws, but the city is not 
obligated to adopt a text amendment that implements them in this way. Committee 
Member Warnicke stated there is a legal argument for exempting R1-6 and R1-10 
zones, especially those with homes subdivided before 1998 or 1999 and these areas 
are already entitled to duplexes because our historic neighborhoods are already denser 
than many of the true single-family neighborhoods in Phoenix that do not allow 
duplexes. Committee Warnicke stated his office is in a home that was converted from a 
duplex which are scattered throughout the Willo Neighborhood. Committee Member 
Warnicke stated the city does not have to do this it is choosing to and that is why there 
is going to be a fight with the city. Committee Member Warnicke stated he should not 
have to fight both the state and the city, but that’s the position we have been put in 
which is ridiculous. Committee Member Warnicke stated we have invested hundreds of 
thousands, maybe millions in historic preservation grants and encouraged families, like 
the one who restored two old homes, to take advantage of tax benefits and reinvest in 
their properties. Committee Member Warnicke stated this was in the 1980s and he 
remember walking up 5th Avenue to Kenilworth School. Committee Member Warnicke 
stated back then, homes had planks over the stairs and people were rolling motorcycles 
into their living rooms and that is what the neighborhood was like before it became the 
Willo Neighborhood. Committee Member Warnicke stated we saved that neighborhood 
and saved others which helped create the city that people now want to walk through 
and now they want to tear it all down and build fourplexes. Committee Member 
Warnicke stated he could not be more livid, and he is going to do everything he can to 
stop it. 
 
Chair Montaño Searles reminded everyone that the item under discussion is part of 
the timeline presented earlier in the meeting and explained that the matter went to the 
Planning Commission for information only on September 4 and it is scheduled for the 
Planning Commission with a recommendation on October 6, and then it will go before 
City Council on November 5. Chair Montaño Searles encouraged attendees to visit the 
city’s website and navigate to the public meetings section under the City Clerk’s page 
for more information and also welcomed continued public participation, noting that if 
individuals want to make their voices heard, that is the place to do so and thanked 
everyone for their comments and reiterated that today’s item was for information only.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 10 of 10 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
 
September 16, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised 
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle Housing 
(MH) Overlay District; and amend various other sections  
of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to ensure 
proper application of related state requirements related to 
Middle Housing 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item No. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were 
heard concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Staff Presentation:  
 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background 
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle 
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes, 
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing 
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. Sanchez 
Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does not adopt 
regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed without any 
zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties designated 
historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where middle 
housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by displaying 
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments. 
 
Questions from the Committee: 
 
Kristine Morris asked for clarification regarding new subdivisions and homeowner 
associations. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that homeowner associations can add restrictions 
to prohibit middle housing.

Estrella Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
September 16, 2025 
Page 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Dustin Thrower stated that the homeowner associations would not exist until the entire 
subdivision was established. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if the developer built a single-
family house on an established middle housing lot, then the owner would have to 
circumvent the regulations established by the homeowner’s association. Mr. Thrower 
voiced his confusion on how homeowner associations can prohibit middle housing. Ms. 
Morris added that someone who purchases a home with a homeowner association is 
typically buying into more restrictions.  
 
Chair Parris Wallace noted that this type of development will not be required to come to 
the committee for recommendation.  
 
Romona Burris asked if this was just another strategy to increase housing within the City 
on top of already establish policy like the Housing Phoenix Plan. Chair Wallace 
confirmed.  
 
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if anyone had any additional questions, they could contact 
her or send an email to the email address provided.  
 
Ms. Burris voiced concern about how this would affect neighborhoods such as Coronado 
and if residents would lose their properties. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if someone 
owned their property, it was their decision if they wanted to convert their lot to allow middle 
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that they would still have to meet all the development 
standards and if the property is historic, then it would have to go through the Historic 
Preservation Office first.  
 
Marcus Ceniceros asked if this would only apply to one mile from downtown. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the only way this would occur in 
Estrella was if there were any new subdivisions of 10 acres or more and if an applicant 
rezoned their property to add the overlay district.  
 
Chair Wallace noted that a lot of housing projects have been approved and asked what 
would happen to those projects. Mr. Thrower added that it would depend on the acreage. 
Chair Wallace noted an approved housing project with a lazy river. Ms. Sanchez Luna 
noted that that proposal was for multifamily residential.  
 
Ms. Burris asked if historic neighborhoods are in danger. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that 
they had voiced some concerns. Ms. Burris stated that this type of housing was bound to 
happen. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that proposed middle housing projects had to be 
compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that 
middle housing could be one two-story house with one family on the first floor and one 
family on the second floor. Chair Wallace voiced her excitement and approval and noted 
that Estrella would like to see more housing.

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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 8, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised 
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle 
Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other 
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to 
ensure proper application of related state requirements 
related to Middle Housing           
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item No. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were 
heard concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Staff Presentation:  
 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background 
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle 
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes, 
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing 
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. Sanchez 
Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does not adopt 
regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed without any 
zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties designated 
historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where middle 
housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by displaying 
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.  
 
Questions from the Committee:  
 
Carlos Ortega asked if all the other major cities were affected by the bill. Ms. Sanchez 
Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that she was unaware of the exact 
regulations that other cities will be implementing.  
 
Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen asked if the text amendment would eventually expand

Laveen Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
September 8, 2025 
Page 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
beyond the one-mile radius around downtown. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that if a 
proposed development wanted to provide the ability for middle housing, then they would 
have to rezone the site to add the overlay.  
 
Linda Abegg asked for more information regarding the boundary and asked if that was 
implemented by the House Bill or the city. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the House Bill 
stated that it had to apply within one mile of downtown and that the City determined that 
Phoenix’s downtown was the area zoned Downtown Code. Ms. Abegg asked for more 
information regarding parking. Ms. Abegg is asked if a fourplex was built, would the 
development be required to have eight parking spaces. Ms. Sanchez Luna note that 
she would have to confirm. Ms. Abegg stated that her concern was private streets and 
subdivisions that prohibit on-street parking. Ms. Abegg asked if HOA’s are exempt. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna noted that HOA’s can prohibit middle housing but would confirm.  
 
Co-Vice Chair Jensen stated that this was accessory dwelling units on steroids. Mixen 
Rubio-Raffin added that this would mean separate addresses and utilities. 
 
Ms. Rubio Raffin was surprised that this came from the State Legislature but hoped 
that this would allow more individuals to buy their own homes.  
 
Ms. Abegg understood the frustration of the residents that this would affect and 
wondered how this would relate to Proposition 207.  
 
Chair Stephanie Hurd noted that it would change the neighborhood.  
 
Ms. Abegg asked how staff would track on-street parking. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted 
that she would have to follow up regarding the parking inquiry.  
 
Juanita Darby noted that she used to live in a duplex, and she still had her own 
driveway and backyard.  
 
Chair Hurd added that some diversity would be good, but that the Laveen character 
called for large-lot single-family homes. Ms. Darby noted an existing subdivision with 
large lots in Laveen.  
 
Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen stated that the city has been built with primarily single-
family neighborhoods and noted that that this type of development would be more 
appropriate in lots built to accommodate middle housing.  
 
Ms. Rubio-Raffin added that businesses in high-density neighborhoods are more 
successful than those in rural areas and could create a higher demand for street 
enhancements and pedestrian amenities.

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-1-25-Y  
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 10, 2025 
Proposal 
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address 
Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised 
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle 
Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various 
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms 
and to ensure proper application of related state 
requirements related to Middle Housing          
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item No. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and 
were heard concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Committee Members Melissa Acevedo and Victoria Stahl entered during these items 
bringing quorum to 12. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background 
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle 
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes, 
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing 
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does 
not adopt regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed 
without any zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties 
designated historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example 
where middle housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the 
presentation by displaying the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for 
comments.

Maryvale Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Questions from the Committee: 
Warren Norgaard asked if the overlay district would apply to the downtown area. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna displayed the map and noted that it would apply to the pink area 
around downtown.  
 
Saundra Cole voiced her concern for the historic neighborhoods and added that she 
did not want these areas to be negatively affected. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that all 
historic neighborhoods would still be subject to review by the Historic Preservation 
Office. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if the City did not add any parameters, then 
middle housing would be allowed without any limitations or development standards.  
 
Chair Gene Derie stated that if someone requested to demolish a historic house, they 
would have to petition the Historic Preservation Office for approval and to remove the 
historic structure. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the Historic Preservation Office does 
review any properties that are either designated or eligible for historic designation.  
 
Chair Derie announced that this presentation was for information only and that the 
committee would not be voting on either the rezoning case or the text amendment.  
Vice Chair Chris Demarest asked if the companion cases would return to the Village 
Planning Committee (VPC) for a recommendation in the upcoming months. Ms. 
Sanchez Luna clarified that both cases will not return to the VPC and displayed the 
proposed timeline noting the dates for the Planning Commission hearing and the City 
Council hearing.  
 
Vice Chair Demarest noted that it was odd that the House Bill would require middle 
housing one mile from downtown if that is where many of the historic houses are 
located. Chair Derie added that all municipalities with a population of 75,000 or 
higher would be required to allow middle housing. Chair Derie added that cities such 
as Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, and Chandler are all required to permit middle housing. 
Vice Chair Demarest stated that all those cities had historic houses within one mile 
of their designated downtown and that he would have liked to have a vote on the 
companion cases.  
 
Andrea Ramirez asked if the Villages that were directly affected would be allowed to 
vote on the companion cases. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that they would not be 
voting.  
 
Mike Weber asked who established the parameters. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that 
the House Bill established the one-mile radius. Mr. Weber clarified that he would like 
to know the development standards for middle housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed 
the single-family lot example and noted that middle housing would still be required to 
meet all required development standards such as lot coverage, building setbacks, and 
projections. Mr. Weber asked about height. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that in a 
single-family zoned lot, the maximum height is two stories or 30 feet and that any 
middle housing development in a single-family lot would be permitted to be as tall as 
two stories or 30 feet.

Maryvale Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Vice Chair Demarest stated that most neighborhoods within the one-mile buffer did 
not have an established homeowner’s association.  
 
Alvin Battle asked what was considered downtown. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed 
the map and noted the grey area that was zoned Downtown Code. Chair Derie 
provided the street boundaries for downtown and the one-mile buffer.  
 
Ken DuBose asked what each case would accomplish. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated 
that the text amendment case Z-TA-1-25-Y would modify the Zoning Ordinance to 
allow the development standards for middle housing and the rezoning case Z-3-25-4-
7-8 established the overlay district.  
 
Ms. Ramirez asked if a developer could convert a lot of commercial properties to 
middle housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified that the only way it would apply to 
Maryvale was if there were any new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or more built 
or if a property was rezoned.  
 
Public Comment: 
 
None  
 
Committee Discussion: 
 
Mr. Weber voiced his displeasure for all the palm trees in the pictures. Chair Derie 
and Mr. Weber noted that palm trees provide no shade and require a lot of water.

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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY  
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 11, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Agenda Item 8 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 9 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases 
and were heard concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the 
State Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these 
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle 
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721. 
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the 
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the 
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment 
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr. 
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one 
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown 
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not 
apply to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not 
exempt under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design 
review procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing 
demolition restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to 
allow two-story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical 
building setback exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same 
zoning development standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage,

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
setbacks, height, projections, building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano noted that 
the text amendment includes revisions so accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are only 
permitted on a lot with one primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of 
different types of middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require 
the City to allow subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the 
City is not proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by 
existing property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-
in provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous 
acres or more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the 
subdivision without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano 
concluded with the timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional 
resources, and key takeaways.  
 
Questions from Committee: 
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked why the State legislature restricted 
requiring fire sprinklers. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is probably more of an 
expensive requirement that multifamily residential development typically triggers. Mr. 
Zambrano added that the Phoenix building code has recently been updated and was 
following this legislation. Mr. Zambrano stated that the walls between units would still 
be required to be fire-rated. 
 
Committee Member Will Manion asked if the opt-in provision for new subdivisions of 
10 acres or more has to be 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision or if it could be 
less than 20 percent. Mr. Zambrano responded that it has to be 20 percent.  
 
Chair Julie Read stated that there is a big concern with the historic districts 
surrounding Downtown Phoenix and the threat this legislation has to historic homes. 
Chair Read stated that there is a historic preservation group that will be trying to get 
the State legislature to address this in the next legislative session. Chair Read 
suggested that individuals reach out to their respective representative if this topic is 
important to them.  
 
Mr. Zambrano added that the State bill does not change existing design review 
requirements for historic properties or demolition restrictions for eligible historic 
properties.  
 
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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 17, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing      
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and 
were heard together.  
 
Committee Member Fred Hepperle joined the meeting during this item bringing the 
quorum to 9 members present. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text 
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state 
legislation, details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the 
Middle Housing Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a 
summary of the timeline for the cases. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITEE 
 
Committee Member Bill Adams asked what the Legislature’s rational was for 
passing the bill. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not want to speak for the State 
Legislature but for the last several years, the Legislature has been trying to address 
the housing affordability issue. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that in 2024, the State Legislature 
passed another bill which required municipalities to adopt regulations relating to 
Accessory Dwelling Units by January of 2025 and that the Middle Housing Bill 
required adoption by January of 2026.  
 
Committee Member Jim Larson asked if the law applies to currently vacant lots or 
when a property becomes available on the market allowing the owner to then 
demolish the property and construct a four-plex on the property. Mr. Kuhfuss asked if

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the question was directed towards properties located within the pink polygon. 
Committee Member Larson confirmed that was the case. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it 
was his understanding that a property owner could demolish the site and construct a 
four-plex and that there is no provision that requires it be owner-occupied. Committee 
Member Larson stated that it was his understanding that the effect of the bill was to 
render Historic Preservation areas null and void to allow a developer to demolish a 
house to build a four-plex. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he was not 100% familiar with the 
nuances of Historic Preservation and that it was his understanding that certain 
protections remain in place for properties that lie within a historic neighborhood 
including a waiting period prior to demolition, and a requirement that the new building 
fit the neighborhood.  
 
Committee Member Matthew Knapp asked if on new subdivisions is the developer 
required to construct middle housing on the 10% of lots that were earmarked as such. 
Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the threshold was 20% not 10% and that the law requires the 
lots to be earmarked but there is no requirement for the developer to exercise that 
right. 
 
Committee Member Patrick Edwards asked for clarification that if he owned a 
house within the pink polygon, his neighbor could demolish the neighboring house 
and construct middle housing. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that was the case.  
 
Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked if the property was deed-
restricted, would that still be the case. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that deed restrictions are 
private agreements between property owners and that Middle Housing would not 
supersede that agreement. Committee Member Sommacampagna asked for clarity on 
the Central Business District. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he was not sure how the statute 
defined the Central Business District, but the City of Phoenix has defined the 
Downtown Core as the basis for determining the one-mile buffer. Mr. Kuhfuss stated 
that there were other municipalities where the Central Business District was not 
aligned with their downtown area. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 8, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Agenda Item 7 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 8 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases 
and were heard concurrently. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Staff Presentation 
Adrian Zambrano provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State 
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these 
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle 
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721. 
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the 
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the 
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment 
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr. 
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one 
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown 
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply 
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt 
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review 
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition 
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback 
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development 
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections, 
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow 
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not 
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing 
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in 
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or 
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision 
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the 
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key 
takeaways.  
 
Questions from the Committee 
Committee Member Anna Sepic asked why the lots with the MH Overlay District in a 
new subdivision 10 acres or more would be allowed to be dispersed randomly 
throughout the subdivision. Committee Member Sepic stated that the lots that have the 
MH Overlay District should be located adjacent to each other. Mr. Zambrano 
responded that the State law did not specify how to disperse the MH-zoned lots within a 
subdivision. Committee Member Sepic asked if the City is asking for feedback on how it 
should be implemented. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City is taking comments and 
feedback, but the City must still comply with the State law so there are some limitations 
on changes that can be made. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff could take the comment 
and look into it. 
 
Committee Member Robert Goodhue stated that there have been certain subdivisions 
in the past that restricted lots to one-story along certain exterior boundaries of the 
subdivision in order to not affect other adjacent one-story properties. Committee 
Member Goodhue asked if the lots zoned for middle housing within a subdivision could 
similarly be restricted. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law states that the City 
cannot restrict middle housing to less than two stories. Mr. Zambrano added that if the 
lots within a subdivision along a certain exterior boundary were restricted to one-story, 
then the lots zoned for middle housing would have to be placed elsewhere within the 
subdivision. Mr. Zambrano added that certain areas of a lot do not allow two stories, 
such as in the rear yard of the lot where projections are allowed.  
 
Committee Member Jennifer Hall asked why the Village Planning Committees are 
hearing these items for information only. Mr. Zambrano responded that these cases are 
to comply with State law, so the City is only having these cases voted on at the two 
required public hearings for Planning Commission and City Council. 
 
Committee Member Toby Gerst stated that this State requirement seems very 
onerous.  
 
Committee Member Sepic stated that it looks like it would be at almost 100 percent lot 
coverage. Mr. Zambrano responded that the maximum lot coverage allowed for single-
family residence districts is 50 percent, so lots within the MH Overlay District would still 
have to comply with the maximum lot coverage allowed. Mr. Zambrano added that an 
additional 10 percent lot coverage is allowed for attached shaded structures or 
accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr. Zambrano clarified that part of the text

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
amendment includes revisions that would only allow ADUs on lots with one primary 
dwelling unit on the lot. 
 
Committee Member Robert Gubser asked for clarification that ADUs cannot be placed 
on a lot with a duplex or triplex. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that 
ADUs would only be allowed on a lot with one primary dwelling unit on the lot. 
 
Committee Member Sepic asked if someone could buy a lot with a single-family home, 
demolish it, and build a fourplex on the lot by-right. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is 
within the MH Overlay District within one mile of downtown, or on a lot zoned with the 
MH Overlay District within a new subdivision 10 acres or more, then it would be allowed 
by-right. Committee Member Sepic asked why the City chose downtown where there 
are historic homes. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State Legislature stated that the 
law applies within one mile of downtown, and the area zoned as Downtown Code states 
in the code that this area shall be known as “downtown”. Mr. Zambrano stated that this 
boundary is the adopted downtown area.  
 
Committee Member Goodhue asked for clarification that any new subdivision of 10 
acres or more is citywide. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that for these 
subdivisions it would only apply to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision. 
Committee Member Goodhue asked if the units have to be owner occupied or if they 
can be rentals. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law states that the City cannot 
require owner occupancy.  
 
Committee Member Sepic stated that the majority of homes within one mile of 
downtown are historic properties. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law does not 
take away existing design review requirements for historic properties, so they would still 
have to go through that process.  
 
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-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 9, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of 
related state requirements related to Middle Housing      
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Committee Member Will Holton joined the meeting during this item, bringing the quorum 
to five members.  
 
Agenda Item 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases 
and were heard concurrently.  
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State 
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these 
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle 
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721. 
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the 
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the 
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment 
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr. 
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one 
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown 
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply 
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt 
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review 
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition 
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 2 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback 
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development 
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections, 
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of 
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow 
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not 
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing 
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in 
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or 
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision 
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the 
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key 
takeaways.  
 
Questions from Committee: 
Committee Member Eileen Baden thought it was interesting that the State said that 
the City could not require any structures to contain a fire sprinkler.  
 
Vice Chair Scott Lawrence asked if this requirement is only for the City of Phoenix. 
Mr. Zambrano responded that the restrictions on implementation within the State law 
apply to all cities and towns that the State law is applicable to. Mr. Zambrano added that 
there was a recent update to the Phoenix building code that was passed. Mr. Zambrano 
stated that they were also following this legislation and made the updates to the building 
code accordingly. Mr. Zambrano stated that the walls between the units would still have 
to be fire-rated walls.  
 
Committee Member Baden asked for clarification that the City could still require one 
off-street parking space per unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.  
 
Committee Member Ozzie Virgil asked if homeowners associations (HOAs) could 
restrict middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs could restrict it in new 
subdivisions, but within subdivisions of 10 acres or more, at least 20 percent of the lots 
have to be zoned to allow middle housing, in order to comply with the State law. 
Committee Member Virgil stated that he does not believe the airport exclusion area is 
because of the noise and is instead because of potential airplane crashes. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that the City discourages residential within this area because it is 
so noisy from airplanes. 
 
Chair Cotton asked if the State law would apply to Anthem, which is not a City. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that the State law would apply to any city or town with a 
population of 75,000 or more. Chair Cotton asked for clarification that the west side of 
Anthem is within the City of Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair 
Cotton stated that there are multifamily residential condominiums that were built behind 
the Goodwill along Interstate 17. 
 
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that they are townhomes.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 3 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Zambrano stated that they could have been developed under a certain 
development option in a single-family residence district that allows townhomes. 
 
Committee Member Baden stated that it could be zoned for commercial as well. 
 
Committee Member Will Holton asked how a population of 75,000 or more is defined. 
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be based on the census data available for the 
city or town. 
 
Committee Member Baden asked what the population is in the City of Phoenix. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that it is 1.6 million. 
 
Chair Cotton stated that the census includes children of all ages. 
 
Committee Member Holton asked if the images are real-life examples of what to 
expect. Mr. Zambrano responded that the images are graphics from the Opticos 
Design Missing Middle Housing book. Committee Member Holton expressed concern 
with access for emergency personnel. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be treated 
the same as a single-family home. Mr. Zambrano added that the State said that the City 
cannot require fire sprinklers for middle housing but there would still be fire-rated walls 
between units.  
 
Chair Cotton asked for clarification that there is nothing that the City can do since the 
City has to comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.  
 
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the intent is to reduce housing costs since developers 
would be able to build more units on a lot.  
 
Committee Member Holton asked if property taxes would be increased for the 
homeowner of the original home. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure. Mr. 
Zambrano stated that the units would still all be on one lot.  
 
Committee Member Baden asked about accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr. 
Zambrano responded that the text amendment would also update sections of the 
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to only allow ADUs on a lot with only one primary dwelling 
unit. 
 
Vice Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that middle housing would still be allowed 
outside of the one-mile radius from Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded that 
citywide, middle housing will be allowed on 20 percent of the lots within any new 
subdivision of 10 acres or more. Vice Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that it would 
not be allowed anywhere else throughout the city. Mr. Zambrano responded that it 
would not be allowed by-right. Mr. Zambrano stated that if a new subdivision less than 
10 aces wants to have middle housing and is outside of the one-mile radius from 
Downtown Phoenix, or if an existing subdivision wants to build middle housing, then 
those subdivisions can request to rezone to the MH Overlay District through the public 
hearing process.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 4 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Holton asked if the State law would allow tents or recreational 
vehicles as dwelling units. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would have to be a fixed 
structure. Mr. Zambrano stated that there are established definitions in the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance. Committee Member Holton asked if modular homes would be 
acceptable as middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are certain design 
review requirements for modular homes. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment 
will also update a section of the Pheonix Zoning Ordinance to require design review for 
middle housing. Committee Member Holton asked if middle housing would still have to 
figure out how to tap into the existing water and sewer lines. Mr. Zambrano responded 
affirmatively, noting that the Water Services Department would still review each site and 
would require certain improvements, if necessary, when going through the plan review 
and permitting process. 
 
Committee Member Baden asked if the developers of subdivisions of 10 acres or more 
are required to build middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that 20 percent of the 
lots within a new subdivision of 10 acres or more are required to be zoned to allow 
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano stated that the developer can choose to not build middle 
housing on the lots zoned with the MH Overlay District and can choose to build single-
family homes on those lots instead. 
 
Committee Member Holton asked if there is any precedent for middle housing. Chair 
Cotton responded that when he stayed in Los Angeles, he rented a duplex. Chair 
Cotton added that growing up in New Hampshire, there were multiplexes everywhere. 
Chair Cotton stated that Phoenix is one of the only bigger places he has seen that does 
not allow it. Committee Member Holton asked if middle housing is a trend. 
 
Committee Member Baden responded that middle housing is historical.  
 
Chair Cotton stated that middle housing has been around forever, but Phoenix has 
only allowed single-family homes.  
 
Committee Member Virgil stated that Oklahoma has a lot of middle housing.  
 
Chair Cotton stated that Florida also has middle housing. 
 
Committee Member Holton stated that this State law seems like it is full of problems, 
but he does not know what other cities have encountered. Mr. Zambrano responded 
that in Arizona, most cities and towns have only allowed single-family zoning. 
Committee Member Holton asked for clarification that this would be new to Arizona. Mr. 
Zambrano responded affirmatively.   
 
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that in the past, developers were still able to build middle 
housing in Phoenix, as long as it was zoned for multifamily. 
 
Mr. Zambrano responded that the difference with this law is that the duplex, triplex, or 
fourplex would be built on a single-family zoned lot.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
Page 5 of 5 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that a typical developer would likely locate all the MH-
zoned lots together within a subdivision.  
 
Public Comments: 
None. 
 
Staff Response: 
None. 
 
Committee Discussion: 
None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y 
INFORMATION ONLY 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 9, 2025 
Proposal 
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to 
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona 
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a 
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend 
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to 
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related 
state requirements related to Middle Housing           
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were 
heard together. 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
STAFF PRESENTATION  
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, began the presentation by providing background information on 
House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle housing. Mr. Rogers 
displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and 
townhomes. Mr. Rogers noted that middle housing must be compatible in scale, form, 
and character with single-family houses. Mr. Rogers summarized the middle housing 
requirements for the City. Mr. Rogers described the penalty clause that stated that if a 
municipality does not adopt regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be 
allowed without any zoning controls or restrictions. Mr. Rogers added that properties 
designated historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where 
middle housing may or may not fit. Mr. Rogers concluded the presentation by displaying 
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked whether developers of new subdivisions of 10 acres 
or more would provide both a single-family and middle housing product. Mr. Rogers 
confirmed that new subdivision of 10 acres or more could develop with both housing 
products.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y  
September 9, 2025 
Page 2 of 4 
 
Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez inquired whether this was a statewide 
requirement. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the State law applies statewide. 
 
Committee Member Mark Beehler asked whether the 20% middle housing in new 
subdivisions was a requirement or an option. Mr. Rogers clarified that it is an option. 
 
Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on the overlay area. Mr. 
Rogers displayed the overlay map and described its boundaries. Committee Member 
Brownell asked if the one-mile buffer was measured from a central point in downtown. 
Mr. Rogers explained that it is measured from the boundaries of the Downtown Code. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked whether the State had reviewed or approved the 
proposed boundary. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not sure what the State has reviewed 
but confirmed that the proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Law Department. 
 
Committee Member Brownell inquired whether the proposal would allow two-story 
structures in the rear setback. Mr. Rogers explained that middle housing developments 
will still be required to comply with zoning standards, including setbacks, and the 
proposal will not change where two stories can be built. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked whether a one-story single-family home could 
add a second-story unit. Mr. Rogers stated that it could. 
 
Committee Member Lee Coleman asked whether the proposal would impact Average 
Lot Subdivisions. Mr. Rogers stated that the proposed changes would consolidate 
subdivision options into a “Standard” option and a “Planned Residential Development” 
option. 
 
Chair Greathouse asked whether there had been any research into how many units 
this proposal could add to the market. Mr. Rogers explained that research had not been 
conducted, as not every lot can feasibly fit four units or would redevelop. 
 
Chair Greathouse asked whether 20% of lots or units would be permitted to develop as 
middle housing in new subdivisions. Mr. Rogers stated that it is 20% of lots. 
 
Committee Member Trent Marchuk asked when in the process a developer would 
indicate they are using the middle housing provisions. Mr. Rogers explained this would 
occur during the platting stage. Committee Member Marchuk asked whether a 
developer could show a single-family product during rezoning and later add middle 
housing at platting. Mr. Rogers confirmed that is possible. 
 
Committee Member Beehler asked whether the Village Planning Committee sees the 
plat. Mr. Rogers stated that the VPC sees the conceptual lot layout during rezoning, but 
platting occurs after that process.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y  
September 9, 2025 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked who would own the units if a developer built four 
on one lot. Mr. Rogers stated that there are no ownership restrictions and explained 
that condominiums are uncommon in Arizona due to State liability laws. Committee 
Member Brownell expressed concern that the proposal will not promote generational 
wealth. 
 
Committee Member Beehler stated that middle housing is unlikely to be implemented 
in South Mountain, as developers may be reluctant to mix housing types and reduce 
home values. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that middle housing lots 
can be clustered in one location within a subdivision and stated there is an upcoming 
rezoning case with a mix of townhomes and single-family homes. 
 
Committee Member Marchuk asked how rezoning stipulations regarding building 
elevations would apply if middle housing is later designated. Committee Member 
Busching explained that middle housing lots must be identified at the time of plat 
recording. Mr. Rogers stated that the rezoning process is followed by the platting 
process and stated he would follow up with more information. 
 
Committee Member Busching asked why this item was presented for information only 
rather than recommendation. Mr. Rogers stated he did not know but would follow up. 
 
Committee Member Marchuk asked for clarification on the boundaries of the overlay. 
Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal includes two elements: a one-mile overlay 
surrounding Downtown, and a citywide provision allowing 20% of lots in new 
subdivisions of 10 acres or more to develop middle housing. 
 
Vice Chair Emma Viera asked whether a subdivision could develop middle housing 
regardless of community input. Mr. Rogers stated that 20% of lots in qualifying 
subdivisions may develop middle housing, but the VPC can still recommend denial of 
rezoning requests. Vice Chair Viera emphasized the importance of community 
involvement. Mr. Rogers responded that State law prohibits requiring a public hearing 
for this provision. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked whether a property owner outside the overlay 
could add a second story unit. Mr. Rogers clarified that the 20% rule only applies to 
qualifying new subdivisions. Committee Member Busching stated a second story unit 
could be added through accessory dwelling unit (ADU) process. 
 
Committee Member Coleman asked whether a duplex could be developed on an 
existing R1-6 lot. Mr. Rogers stated that it is only permitted within the overlay or in 
qualifying new subdivisions. Committee Member Busching noted that an ADU could 
be built.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-1-25-Y  
September 9, 2025 
Page 4 of 4 
 
Committee Member Marchuk referenced a development with a single large lot and 
asked if the proposal could increase its density. Mr. Rogers stated that the proposal 
only applies to new subdivisions. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked who reviews ADUs. Mr. Rogers stated that 
ADUs are reviewed by the site planning team and clarified that middle housing 
developments under this proposal may not include ADUs, as they are multifamily. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked whether someone with property in the overlay 
could build another home. Mr. Rogers stated that an additional unit may be possible if 
development standards allow it. 
 
Committee Member Brownell asked whether middle housing could be used as short-
term rentals. Mr. Rogers stated that he believes there are no restrictions on short-term 
rentals. Committee Member Brownell asked what restrictions exist for short-term 
rentals. Mr. Rogers stated that a notice to neighbors may be required. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
None. 
 
APPLICANT RESPONSE 
 
None.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION. 
 
None.