Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-11/1/2023 complete
2023-11-01 · Formal
City Council Formal Meeting
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of Jan. 20, 2021, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 11
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 12
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: November 1, 2023
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
Audit Committee
I recommend the following for appointment:
Christian Osmeña
Mr. Osmeña is the Vice President of Enterprise Planning at Arizona State University,
and a resident of District 8. He fills a term to expire July 1, 2025.
Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Jason Schaffner
Mr. Schaffner is the Director of Business Development at Redbarre and IATSE Liaison.
He fills a vacancy as a Business representative for a term to expire June 30, 2026.
Page 13
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 007070013711.
Summary
Applicant
Joseph Del Rossi, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
42101 N. 41st Drive, Ste. 124
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 1
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a beer and
wine bar. This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have
an interim permit. This business is currently being remodeled with plans to open in
November 2023.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 6, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 14
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have consistently demonstrated to be capable, reliable, and qualified in all areas of
my life. Throughout my educational career, I have shown diligence and persistence,
earning a Masters degree in Biomedical Engineering with 4.0 GPA. In industry, I
worked my way up through many positions of management and leadership to a global
director over R&D labs. In my personal life, I am a faithful and loving husband to my
wife and excellent father to my two young children. I am a law abiding citizen that
works hard every day for my family.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We desire to sell beer and wine at iSwing Indoor Golf because we know that it is
something people would enjoy, and even maybe expect, at an indoor golf practice &
play facility. Our business will operate similarly in nature to outdoor diriving ranges,
bowling alleys, and other sports-orientated family fun centers that serve alcohol. Our
community in Anthem, AZ lacks and greatly needs new forms of fun and entertainment
for families and people of all ages. We only hope to provide people something that will
make their experience more enjoyable.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - iSwing Indoor Golf
Liquor License Map - iSwing Indoor Golf
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 15
Liquor License Data: ISWING INDOOR GOLF
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 2
Restaurant 12 9 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 18.47 49.57
Violent Crimes 12.05 1.06 1.91
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 47 1
Total Violations 83 3
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6100002 1938 100 23 3
6100003 1546 54 25 3
6100004 2234 70 6 4
6102003 1703 53 21 5
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 16
Liquor License Map: ISWING INDOOR GOLF
42101 N 41ST DR
Ü
Date: 9/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 17
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Brad Laughlin
Location
5410 E. High St.
Council District: 2
Function
Concert
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 4, 2023 - 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. / 1,500 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 18
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 256336.
Summary
Applicant
Steven Dunsire, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
4602 E. Cactus Road
Zoning Classification: RSC PCD
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 5, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Page 19
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have served as the Director of Operations at the liquor licensed establishment at the
above referenced property as well as numerous other locations in both Arizona and
Colorado for a substantial amount of time.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is a previously licensed restaurant that has offered these services since 2011”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Oregano's Pizza Bistro
Liquor License Map - Oregano's Pizza Bistro
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: OREGANO'S PIZZA BISTRO
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Liquor Store 9 4 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 4
Hotel 11 1 1
Restaurant 12 22 20
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 100.31 257.96
Violent Crimes 12.05 7.69 15.81
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 48 13
Total Violations 83 21
Page 21
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032052 1192 82 0 16
1032082 1548 38 36 18
1032083 885 93 10 0
1032091 804 74 0 24
1032101 872 20 20 12
1032102 1681 32 14 19
1032105 468 0 19 22
1032106 886 23 22 7
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 22
Liquor License Map: OREGANO'S PIZZA BISTRO
4602 E CACTUS RD
Ü
Date: 9/8/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 23
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 255843.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2144 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 6, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Page 24
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Ohso has several locations throughout the valley. We will continue to abide by
Arizona's Title 4 liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location will be a production brewery and a neighborhood meeting place with
food and beverage for one and all. OHSO has an inviting space for families, singles
and all ages. It will also be the production brewery for our outside sales locations,
including, but not limited to Safeway, Camelback Inn, W Hotel and our sister
restaurants and a few more.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - OHSO Brewery
Liquor License Map - OHSO Brewery
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 25
Liquor License Data: OHSO BREWERY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 5 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 26 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 157 129.51
Violent Crimes 12.05 23.06 16.87
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 47 96
Total Violations 83 146
Page 26
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1084003 1071 34 8 40
1085012 1416 74 21 4
1085021 743 50 29 20
1085022 732 23 28 12
1085023 1475 42 20 7
1085024 549 43 31 15
1107021 1972 58 0 30
1108011 1736 56 27 40
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 27
Liquor License Map: OHSO BREWERY
2144 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 9/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 28
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 007070022990.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
2144 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a
restaurant. This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an
interim permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow a beer and wine bar.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 6, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
Page 29
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Ohso has several locations throughout the valley. We will continue to abide by
Arizona's Title 4 liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location will be a production brewery and a neighborhood meeting place with
food and beverage for one and all. OHSO has an inviting space for families, singles
and all ages. It will also be the production brewery for our outside sales locations,
including, but not limited to Safeway, Camelback Inn, W Hotel and our sister
restaurants and a few more.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - OHSO Brewery
Liquor License Map - OHSO Brewery
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 30
Liquor License Data: OHSO BREWERY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 5 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 26 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 157 129.51
Violent Crimes 12.05 23.06 16.87
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 47 96
Total Violations 83 146
Page 31
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1084003 1071 34 8 40
1085012 1416 74 21 4
1085021 743 50 29 20
1085022 732 23 28 12
1085023 1475 42 20 7
1085024 549 43 31 15
1107021 1972 58 0 30
1108011 1736 56 27 40
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 32
Liquor License Map: OHSO BREWERY
2144 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 9/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 33
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 252395.
Summary
Applicant
Praveen Muppavarapu, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
7343 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a grocery store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 5, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 34
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am assured to uphold the laws and regulations about liquor license. I have never
been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with law and
authorities.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy alcohol.
The location will be convenient for the people in the neighborhood who may not have
access to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the owner with running a
store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be safe, secure and
convenience place for the customers to purchase quality alcohol."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Indigo Grocers
Liquor License Map - Indigo Grocers
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 35
Liquor License Data: INDIGO GROCERS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 5
Restaurant 12 5 3
Crime Data
I Description Average* 1 Mile Average** 1/2 Mile Average***
I Property Crimes 63.55 193.84 279.29
I
I Violent Crimes 12.17 46.41 68.68
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
I Description Average
I 1/2 Mile Average
I Parcels wNiolations 47
I 164
I Total Violations 81
I 293
I
Page 36
I JI I I
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1096021 1392
I 71 14 35
1096022 3064
I 27 20 41
1096023 1946
I 79 0 22
1096031 852
I 79 11 3
1096034 1269
I 66 0 17
1097012 1978 48 28 49
1097014 2074 0 17 37
1097031 1232
I 68 0 29
1097032 1653 33 12 31
1097041 1602 68 5 35
1097042 784 71 19 15
Average 0
I 61 13 19
Page 37
Liquor License Map: INDIGO GROCERS
7343 W INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD
un t
z.
z
m
It, t d
Date: 10/20/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
■--=:::i--=::::::1----======:::::J---•mi
City Clerk Department
Page 38
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 256689.
Summary
Applicant
Celene Hillsbery, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5555 N. 7th St., Ste. 108
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 4, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 39
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Brunch Snob (Series 12)
4747 E. Elliott Road #23 & 24, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 86
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a good business owner who is honest and well respected. I have never had any
issues with the law and always follow all rules and regulations. I have held a current
liquor license Jan 2022 and am in good standing.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We have a restaurant with good food that takes care of their customers and they will
enjoy being able to have an alcoholic beverage with their meals. The can trust us to
follow all rules and regulations required to serve alcohol in our establishment.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Brunch Snob
Liquor License Map - Brunch Snob
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 40
Liquor License Data: BRUNCH SNOB
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 5 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 0
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 1
Restaurant 12 56 20
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 121.89 123.46
Violent Crimes 12.05 15.68 14.33
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 47 34
Total Violations 82 57
Page 41
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1065012 1594 61 18 32
1066002 2064 83 7 5
1075001 758 80 2 3
1075002 1458 74 7 15
1076011 319 65 16 46
1076012 904 38 24 23
1076013 1748 38 8 17
1076021 1311 82 0 6
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 42
Liquor License Map: BRUNCH SNOB
5555 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 10/6/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 43
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 256177.
Summary
Applicant
Steven Dunsire, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1008 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 6, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Page 44
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have served as the Director of Operations at the liquor licensed establishment at the
above referenced property as well as numerous other locations in both Arizona and
Colorado for substantial amount time.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is a previously licensed restaurant that has offered these services since 2001.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Oregano's Pizza Bistro
Liquor License Map - Oregano's Pizza Bistro
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 45
Liquor License Data: OREGANOS PIZZA BISTRO
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Wholesaler 4 2 0
Bar 6 6 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 1
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 5
Restaurant 12 55 14
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 164.19 159.76
Violent Crimes 12.05 23.14 21.65
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 48 81
Total Violations 83 143
Page 46
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1075001 758 80 2 3
1076011 319 65 16 46
1076013 1748 38 8 17
1076022 1734 54 18 3
1086021 790 37 38 22
1086022 1187 11 25 52
1086023 650 23 34 15
1086024 1171 24 9 12
1088022 435 43 41 19
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 47
Liquor License Map: OREGANOS PIZZA BISTRO
1008 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 9/8/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 48
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 257155.
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1241 E. Chandler Blvd., Ste. 127
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 4, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 49
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“My wife and I have been working in the restaurant industry for several years. We are
law abiding Arizona US citizens and have already attended the Basic and
Management Liquor Law training to ensure we are in compliance with all State, City
and County laws and ordinances. We have begun to create our own company policy
to ensure our employees follow our rules which are more strict than State Liquor Laws.
We are a restaurant so we will not be serving 50 ounces of beers as the law states. It
will be less.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is a popular sushi restaurant known to the local community. The neighborhood
has expressed their desire to have a sushi restaurant at this location to meet the
needs of the community. The service of the alcoholic beverages is only to compliment
the service of our food. We are looking forward to building a close relationship with the
neighborhood and other local business.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Shinko Sushi House
Liquor License Map - Shinko Sushi House
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 50
Liquor License Data: SHINKO SUSHI HOUSE
Liquor License
I Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
I Liquor Store 9 2 2
I
I Beer and Wine Store 10 2 2
I
Restaurant 12 7 7
I
Crime Data
I Description Average* 1 Mile Average** 1/2 Mile Average***
I
I Property Crimes 62.21 13.53 26.22
I Violent Crimes 11.92 1.53 4.14
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
I Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
I
I Parcels wNiolations 48 2
I Total Violations 83 4
I
II
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy II Persons in Poverty
1167251 1132 95 7 10
1167252 728 29 39 0
1167253 1407 89 0 11
1167272 1344 95 15 0
1167281 1267 97 2 4
1167282 2500 92 5 1
1167283 1145 97 3 6
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 51
Liquor License Map: SHINKO SUSHI HOUSE
1241 E CHANDLER BLVD
Date: 9!7 /2023
■ --==•--==----=======---■
0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 52
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 252097.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
431 N. 47th Ave.
Zoning Classification: Industrial Park
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 4, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may be given only to the applicant's personal
qualifications and not to the location.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 53
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for alcohol sales and
service and is committed to uphold all laws and regulations.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 54
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 258553.
Summary
Applicant
Corianne Nelson, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
111 W. Monroe St., Ste. 120
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 13, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 55
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“This business is a continuation of the wine store I have worked in for the last three
years. In that time, I have learned how to successfully manage and run a retail wine
and beer shop, and how best to serve the community through this work. I want this
retail location to be a neighborhood resource and gathering place for folks to learn
about, discover, and enjoy wine.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The downtown area is undeserved in the area of quality wine and beer. This store will
exist, as it's predecessor has since 2015, as a place where people can learn, discover,
and find their new favorite wine in a welcoming environment.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Unfiltered Natural Wine and More
Liquor License Map - Unfiltered Natural Wine and More
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 56
Liquor License Data: UNFILTERED NATURAL WINE AND
MORE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Microbrewery 3 4 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 7 3
Bar 6 45 30
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 6
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 17 3
Hotel 11 7 6
Restaurant 12 108 52
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 62.89 246.25 361.57
Violent Crimes 12.05 69.45 87.68
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 47 46
Total Violations 82 88
Page 57
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 22 24
1129003 1372 4 18 40
1131001 1015 7 8 28
1131002 1242 3 7 33
1141001 2299 16 37 44
1142001 1321 36 22 50
1143011 1389 22 15 57
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 58
Liquor License Map: UNFILTERED NATURAL WINE AND MORE
111 W MONROE ST
Ü
Date: 9/18/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 59
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Bradley Peterson
Location
1954 N. 24th St.
Council District: 8
Function
Carnival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 10, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. / 100 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 60
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Alexander Beric
Location
4436 E. McKinley St.
Council District: 8
Function
Banquet Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Jan. 13, 2024 - 7 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. / 290 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 61
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
6108 N. 27th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 7, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 62
Public Opinion
One letter protesting the issuance of this license has been received and is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk. The letter is from the North Glenn Square Neighborhood
Association. They are not in support of the liquor license application because the
applicant has not reached out to them or the surrounding neighborhood to meet and
discuss a good neighbor agreement.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a practicing physician since 2007. I will be operating the bar on the stipulated
days and hours which are outside of the hours which are outside of the hours of my
practice. Additionally, I will be attending both Basic and Management Liquor Law so I
can guide my staff in following all laws. Furthermore, my company policies will be more
strict than State law to prevent over intoxication and sales to underage. It is my desire
to establish a bar that is safe and provides entertainment for local residents.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is an existing bar however, I will be hiring new staff to comply with State, City and
County statues. Employees will be required to attend a certified alcohol training class
to be able to identify intoxicated customers on the premises and purchase/consume
alcoholic beverages. Lastly, I want to build strong community relationship with local
neighborhoods and law enforcement.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Club Silverado
Liquor License Map - Club Silverado
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 63
Liquor License Data: CLUB SILVERADO
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 2
Liquor Store 9 7 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 7
Restaurant 12 6 0
Crime Data
I Description Average* 1 Mile Average** 1/2 Mile Average***
I Property Crimes 62.89 228.82 270.27
I
I Violent Crimes 12.05 56.74 84.07
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
I Description
II Average
II 1/2 Mile Average
I Parcels wNiolations
I 47
II 118
I
I Total Violations
I 83
II 196
I
Page 64
I I
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1068012 1670 5 28 55
1068013 1083 30 20 33
1068021 1099 60 0 9
1068022 1105 85 21 1
1069001 1043 81 11 4
1069002 2629 71 5 22
1069003 1767 77 0 14
1072021 3137 64 9 29
1072022 2085 62 5 22
1073001 2203 79 3 6
1073004 2614 23 5 31
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 65
Liquor License Map: CLUB SILVERADO
6108 N 27TH AVE
-v- 10
P.Uf)lilSta Ave:, J 6
£,
�
W Fri r Dt;;:
WMyrU1:1A11e
10 6
:;- 10
W-OeolWoRd
-w.,T!l'y �Y Ln
o,j
I
� z
,:;
j:
::z £l
Pi . n
Date: 9/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
■M.::::::1M•:::::i••••c::===:::::i•••-mi
City Clerk Department
Page 66
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 256242.
Summary
Applicant
Josh Rios, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1640 N. 36th St. A#105 A106
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a specialty market. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 13, 2023.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 67
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am receiving a valid training and Certificate of Completion on Basic and
Management Title 4 courses. I have had other liquor licensed businesses in Phoenix
for years in the past, which licenses had a history of compliance with A. R.S. 4-112(G)
(2).”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“There is a demand for the purchase of liquor products at this location. Customers
always asking for addling liquor products, so they can buy. This is a retail meat market
store conveniently located for the customers at a major road intersection. I intend to
serve better my customers who live nearby to able them to save time and make all of
their purchases in a single location, like my small store.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval and noting the applicant must resolve any pending
of Phoenix Code and Ordinances. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability,
qualifications and reliability to hold and control a liquor license.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Carniceria Y Panaderia La Exclusiva
Liquor License Map - Carniceria Y Panaderia La Exclusiva
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 68
Liquor License Data: CARNICERIA Y PANADERIA LA
EXCLUSIVA
Liquor License
Wholesaler
Description
Series
1 Mile
II 0
1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Restaurant 12 4 1
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
I Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
I
I Property Crimes 62.89 187.12 201.48
I
I Violent Crimes 12.05 46.47 49.68
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels wNiolations 47 125
I Total Violations 82 202
I
Page 69
I I
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1114011 2444 62 7 27
1114012 2000 67 23 29
1114021 1986 38 14 27
1114022 2120 45 17 31
1115023 1245 32 14 50
1135012 1738 41 26 36
1136011 1911 16 21 11
1136012 1471 36 14 49
1136021 1061 49 11 53
Average 0 61 13 19
Page 70
Liquor License Map: CARNICERIA Y PANADERIA LA EXCLUSIVA
1640 N 36TH ST
E f 1rmo1 Av tr,
VI
;; n z EOs
CII
z
"'"
:z: �
z E. E rlr Dr
I
P11u:llo.t Ave _ ...
N
�6 6
10 10
I
ii: AY
EVI Sl
E Pa[mln
E Aff ll'l
Pl-i·, nt:< I H rt,; r
Date: 9/18/2023
0 0.2 0.4
•••-====:::::i••••mi
■--=:::: :■--=:::: :■
0.8 1.2 1.6
City Clerk Department
Page 71
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-50277) (Items 18-25)
Ordinance S-50277 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 42-13.
18 AZ Wastewater Industries, Inc.
For $150,000 in additional payment authority for Contract 150202 for GfG
Multi-Gas Monitors, Repair and Replacement Parts, Accessories, and
Services, for the Aviation Department. AZ Wastewater Industries, Inc., will
provide the monitors, parts, accessories, and services on an as-needed
basis while working in confined spaces to detect hazardous gases.
19 Life Technologies Corporation
For $67,538 in payment authority to purchase a one-year service
agreement for the two Life Technologies 3500xL Genetic Analyzers, and
three 7500 Real Time PCR System instruments, utilized by the Forensic
DNA Section of the Laboratory Services Bureau. These instruments are
proprietary and have been validated for use with laboratory reagents in
order to meet national standards. The Forensic DNA Section uses these
instruments to conduct DNA analyses on biological evidence. Annual
service is required to meet federal standards for DNA casework
laboratories. Funding is available in the Police Department budget.
20 Inroads Info, Inc., Gunn Communications, Inc., HDR
Engineering, Inc., Your Project Marketing & Outreach,
LLC, Riester Sonoran, LLC, and Urias Communications,
LLC
For $100,000 in additional payment authority for Contracts 151322 with
Page 72
Inroads Info, Inc.; 151323 with Gunn Communications, Inc.; 151324 with
HDR Engineering, Inc.; 151325 with Riester Sonoran, LLC; 151326 with
Urias Communications, LLC; and 151327 with Your Project Marketing &
Outreach, LLC, for the development of bilingual (English and Spanish)
bicycle and pedestrian safety campaign materials to include public
service announcements (PSA), printed materials, and the purchase of
media spots on radio and/or social media to increase the reach of the
PSA messages for the Street Transportation Department. Previous
Council actions include approval of Ordinances S-46184 and S-49026
authorizing the Street Transportation Department to apply for and
accept additional funding from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety.
21 Arizona Public Service Company dba APS
For $35,000 in payment authority to APS for invoice AR0480007986, for
relocation of streetlights on the Oak Street Bike and Pedestrian
Improvements Project ST87600121-1, for the Street Transportation
Department.
22 Settlement of Claim(s) NWI Grunow Memorial Medical v.
To make payment of up to $38,356.75 in settlement of claim(s) in NWI
Grunow Memorial Medical v. City of Phoenix, 22-1067-001 AU, PD, for
the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This
is a settlement of a claim involving the Public Works Department that
occurred on Dec. 13, 2022.
23 Settlement of Claim(s) Mr Bult's Inc v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $91,700 in settlement of claim(s) in Mr Bult's
Inc v. City of Phoenix, 22-0939-001 GL, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim
involving the Public Works Department that occurred on Nov. 15, 2022.
24 Settlement of Claim(s) Palm Silage Arizona LLC v. City
of Phoenix
To make payment of $100,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Palm Silage
Arizona LLC v. City of Phoenix, CV2022-011172, 19-0852-001, GL, for
Page 73
the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This
is a settlement of a claim involving the Public Works Department that
occurred on Dec. 19, 2019.
25 Settlement of Claim(s) Estate of Ali Osman v. City of
Phoenix
To make payment of $5,500,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Estate of Ali
Osman v. City of Phoenix, CV-00317, 22-0291-001, GL, BI, for the
Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a claim involving the Police Department that occurred on
Sept. 24, 2022.
Page 74
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
This item requests to reappoint the following individuals as judges of the Phoenix
Municipal Court, if recommended by the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee:
Francisca Cota to a term expiring on Dec. 20, 2027; Cynthia Gonzales to a term
expiring on Dec. 20, 2027; James Hernandez to a term expiring on Dec. 20, 2027; and
Walter Jackson to a term expiring on Nov. 23, 2027.
Summary
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended Judges
Francisca Cota, Cynthia Gonzales, James Hernandez, and Walter Jackson, to be
considered for reappointment by the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee.
On Nov. 1, 2023, the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee will consider
recommending Francisca Cota, Cynthia Gonzales, James Hernandez, and Walter
Jackson, to be reappointed as a judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court. If
recommended by the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee, the approval of
Francisca Cota, Cynthia Gonzales, James Hernandez, and Walter Jackson's
reappointment by the full City Council will be held during the Formal Meeting on Nov.
1, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the City Council Office.
Page 75
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
This report recommends the Mayor and City Council appoint an Expenditure Limit Task
Force and initiate the quadrennial review process to carefully study the State
Expenditure Limit effect on the City. The Task Force will recommend a proposal for
placement on the ballot for the November 2024 regular election.
Summary
In 1980, Arizona voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting local
government spending to 1979-80 amounts adjusted for annual growth in population
and inflation. This constitutional amendment included provisions for obtaining voter
approval to exceed those limits. Since 1980, Phoenix has had ten home rule options
approved by the voters.
Each of the City's prior home rule options have been thoroughly studied and
recommended by citizen task forces. The City's current home rule option will expire on
June 30, 2025. A proposal must be presented to the voters in the regular election on
Nov. 5, 2024, in order to be in place by July 1, 2025. Additional information regarding
the expenditure limit is attached to this report in Attachments A-C.
Recommendation
Staff recommends a Task Force be appointed and charged with reviewing the revenue
and expenditure forecasts prepared by City staff, studying the potential effects of the
constitutional limit, and recommending a proposal to the Mayor and City Council for
referral to the ballot. Staff also recommends the following schedule for their work:
· November 2023 - Appointment of Task Force
· February/March 2024 - Task Force meetings
· April 2024 - Task Force presents findings to the City Council
· May 2024 - Two required public hearings
· May 2024 - Required analysis transmitted to the State Auditor General
· June 2024 - Adoption of the form of the ballot
· August 2024 - Publicity pamphlet materials prepared
· Nov. 5, 2024 - Election Day
Page 76
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Budget and Research
Department.
Page 77
ATTACHMENT A
Expenditure Limit Overview
State Spending Limit:
• Also known as “Expenditure Limitation”
• It is a State Constitutional limit approved by voters in 1980 which restricts annual
spending limits of cities and towns. The limit applies to all local revenues.
• Limits spending to 1979-80 actual levels adjusted for population growth and inflation.
However, original limitation does not account for voter-approved increases (transit,
public safety, parks and preserves), regional services (Sky Harbor, wastewater
treatment) or Federal/State mandates (clean water, FAA).
• The Constitution includes provisions for exceeding the limit with voter approval.
• The Home Rule Option, also known as an Alternative Expenditure Limitation, must go
to voters every four years.
If Home Rule Not Approved:
• The City will exceed the spending limitation and the State will withhold state-shared
revenues in a formula-based amount set by statute. The City would need to reduce
expenditures by an estimated $1.5 billion or more annually to comply with the
formulaic limit, based on analysis completed from the last expenditure limitation
process in 2020.
• Since 1980, Phoenix has had ten spending limit options approved by voters.
• Through Home Rule approved by Phoenix voters, the limit has been set at the adopted
budget since 1999.
• Each of Phoenix’s prior options have been studied and recommended by a Citizen’s
Task Force.
• Voters last approved the Home Rule Option in November 2020.
• Phoenix’s current Home Rule period expires on June 30, 2025.
• Solution must be presented to voters in November 2024 to be effective July 1, 2025.
Citizen Task Force Process:
• To be appointed by Mayor and Council in November 2023.
• Review the revenue and expenditure forecasts prepared by City staff (Feb/Mar 2024).
• Study the potential effects of the Constitutional limit.
• Recommend a solution to Council in April 2024.
Page 78
ATTACHMENT B
Expenditure Limit
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the State expenditure limit?
It is a State Constitutional limit approved by voters in 1980 which restricts annual
spending limits of cities and towns. The limit applies to all local revenues.
• Limits spending to 1979-80 levels adjusted for:
o Population; including annexations
o Inflation; gross domestic product and inflation price deflator
o Population and inflation factors are provided by the State
• Exempts certain expenditures:
o Federal funds
o Bond proceeds
o Debt service
o Arizona Highway User Revenue (AHUR)
o Local Transportation Assistance (LTA)
o Other jurisdictions’ contributions (e.g. the Sub-Regional Operating Group
for the 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plant)
2. What happens if we exceed the spending limitation?
The State will withhold state-shared income tax revenues in a formula-based amount
set by statute. For Phoenix, this could result in the General Fund losing about $145
million per year which would be redistributed to all other cities and towns in Arizona.
3. What options do cities have to change the limits?
There are four methods for obtaining approval to change the limits.
Alternative Expenditure Limitation (Home Rule Option)
• Only in effect for four years, then must be reapproved by voters.
• Any and all expenditures can be exempted from the limit.
• Must be voted on in the year preceding the first fiscal year to which the
alternative expenditure limit will apply.
• Can only be voted on at a regularly scheduled election of the local governing
board (city council).
• If the voters do not approve the alternative expenditure limitation, the city must
wait two years before putting it on the ballot again.
Permanent Base Adjustment
• Permanently increases the base from which future spending limits are
calculated.
Page 79
• Does not provide for any increase in exemptions other than those
constitutionally allowed.
• Can only be voted on at a regularly scheduled election of the local governing
board (city council).
One-Time Override
• Applies in the following circumstances:
o In the event of a natural or man-made disaster and approval by council –
may exceed limit for expenditures directly necessitated by the disaster.
o Upon affirmative vote of two-thirds of the council and approval by a
majority of voters – may exceed limit by the specific amount approved.
• Can be voted on at either a regular or special election.
• Only good for the following fiscal year.
Capital Accumulation Exclusion
• Authorizes a permanent exclusion of a fixed level of operating funds for pay-as-
you-go capital. Limited exclusions for Aviation, Water, Wastewater and Streets
were authorized in 1981.
4. Can Phoenix go to another approach besides the Home Rule Option?
Phoenix could go to a permanent base adjustment. Concerns identified through prior
citizen discussions include:
• This approach does not require periodic review by a citizens’ group.
• A permanent base adjustment may not be truly permanent. Each year the
expenditure limit will be calculated based on inflation and local population. At
some point, it is possible that expenditures would again exceed the limit. All
spending is subject to pressures not addressed by population and inflation
factors such as environmental mandates and regional issues. This is especially
true of Enterprise Departments, particularly the airport. Additionally, the ability
to improve services in accordance with regional economic conditions and
residents’ wishes would be limited.
• Phoenix’ previous attempts at permanent base adjustments have all failed.
Permanent base adjustments for replacement of Federal Transit Assistance
and Federal Revenue Sharing funds were defeated in 1985. A permanent base
adjustment for transit expenditures was defeated in 1997.
Phoenix voters have approved local Home Rule Options ten times; 1981, 1985, 1991,
1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2020. The first Home Rule Option excluded
Aviation, Water, Wastewater and Civic Plaza operations. The next two Home Rule
Options excluded Aviation, Water, Wastewater and Refuse funds. The 1995 Home
Rule Option excluded Aviation, Water and Wastewater funds. In 1999, 2003, 2007,
2011, 2015 and 2020 the Home Rule Option was set at the adopted budget, which
follows a thorough community-based process. Several other cities in the State use a
similar Home Rule Option.
A history of Home Rule Option and Permanent Base Adjustment Initiatives is included
in Attachment C.
Page 80
In 1999, for the first time we saw the impact of the expenditure limit on funds other
than Aviation, Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste (formerly the Refuse fund). These
impacts continue today and have two major causes:
• The use of a national inflation indicator as a measure of economic growth
prohibited us from responding to what was, until the 2007 recession, a robust
Phoenix economy.
• New funding such as the voter-approved Transit 2050, Public Safety
Expansion and Parks and Preserves taxes.
5. When does our current authorization expire?
Our authorization for an alternative expenditure limit expires June 30, 2025.
To implement a new Home Rule covering July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2029, the
option must be approved by voters on the November 2024 ballot.
6. What local cities and towns have approved alternatives to the expenditure
limitation?
The list of cities and towns that have approved alternatives/exemptions to the state
expenditure limitation is attached and is the most recent information available from the
League of Arizona Cities and Towns (Feb. 2023).
Page 81
FINANCE
Rev (02/2023)
Type of Alternative Expenditure Year Next Home
NAME Limit Effective Rule Election
APACHE JUNCTION Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
AVONDALE Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
BENSON Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
BISBEE Home Rule 2019-2022 Fall 2022
BUCKEYE Permanent Base Adjustment 2015-2016
BULLHEAD CITY None
CAMP VERDE Permanent Base Adjustment 2021-2022
CAREFREE Permanent Base Adjustment 1999-2000
CASA GRANDE Permanent Base Adjustment 2009-2010
CAVE CREEK Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
CHANDLER Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
CHINO VALLEY Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
CLARKDALE Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
CLIFTON Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
COLORADO CITY Permanent Base Adjustment 2002-2003
COOLIDGE Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
COTTONWOOD Permanent Base Adjustment 2013-2014
DEWEY-HUMBOLDT None
DOUGLAS Permanent Base Adjustment 2008-2009
DUNCAN Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
EAGAR Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
EL MIRAGE Permanent Base Adjustment 2015-2016
ELOY Permanent Base Adjustment 2021-2022
FLAGSTAFF Permanent Base Adjustment 2021-2022
FLORENCE Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
FOUNTAIN HILLS Permanent Base Adjustment 2006-2007
FREDONIA Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
GILA BEND Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
GILBERT Permanent Base Adjustment 1997-1998
GLENDALE Permanent Base Adjustment 2000-2001
GLOBE Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
GOODYEAR Permanent Base Adjustment 2003-2004
GUADALUPE Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
HAYDEN Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
HOLBROOK Home Rule 2019-2020 Spring 2024
HUACHUCA CITY Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
JEROME Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
Permanent Base Adjustment 1982-1983
KEARNY
Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
KINGMAN Permanent Base Adjustment 2021-2022
LAKE HAVASU CITY Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
LITCHFIELD PARK Permanent Base Adjustment 2005-2006
MAMMOTH Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
MARANA Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
MARICOPA Permanent Base Adjustment 2005-2006
MESA Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
MIAMI Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
NOGALES Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
ORO VALLEY Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
PAGE Permanent Base Adjustment 2005-2006
PARADISE VALLEY Permanent Base Adjustment 2006-2007
PARKER Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
PATAGONIA Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
PAYSON Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
PEORIA Permanent Base Adjustment 2003-2004
PHOENIX Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
PIMA Permanent Base Adjustment 2017-2018
PINETOP-LAKESIDE Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
PRESCOTT Home Rule 2022-2023 Fall 2025
PRESCOTT VALLEY Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
QUARTZSITE None
QUEEN CREEK Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
SAFFORD Permanent Base Adjustment 2008-2009
SAHUARITA None
SAN LUIS None
SCOTTSDALE Permanent Base Adjustment 2006-2007
SEDONA Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
SHOW LOW Permanent Base Adjustment 2017-2018
Page 82
Type of Alternative Expenditure Year Next Home
NAME Limit Effective Rule Election
SIERRA VISTA Permanent Base Adjustment 2001-2002
SNOWFLAKE Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
SOMERTON Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
SOUTH TUCSON Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
SPRINGERVILLE Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
ST. JOHNS Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
STAR VALLEY Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
SUPERIOR Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
SURPRISE Permanent Base Adjustment 2007-2008
TAYLOR Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
TEMPE Permanent Base Adjustment 2002-2003
THATCHER Permanent Base Adjustment 1998-1999
TOLLESON Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
TOMBSTONE Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
TUCSON Permanent Base Adjustment 2014-2015
TUSAYAN Home Rule 2021-2022 Fall 2024
WELLTON None
WICKENBURG Permanent Base Adjustment 2006-2007
WILLCOX None
WILLIAMS Home Rule 2019-2020 Fall 2022
WINKELMAN Permanent Base Adjustment 2019-2020
WINSLOW None
YOUNGTOWN Permanent Base Adjustment 2013-2014
YUMA None
Page 83
ATTACHMENT C
SPENDING LIMIT OPTION HISTORY
Approved
by Voters
Yes No
1981 Home Rule Option
Exclude all expenditures associated with Aviation, Water, Wastewater X
and Civic Plaza operations
Permanent Capital
Improvement Exclusions:
Aviation - $5 million X
Wastewater - $6 million X
Water - $6 million X
General Purpose Funds for Street Improvements - $2 million X
Civic Plaza - $1.2 million X
1985 Home Rule Option
Exclude all expenditures associated with Aviation, Water, Wastewater X
and Refuse
Exclude expenditures related to City Court, City Prosecutor, and Public X
Defender
Provide permanent base adjustment of $6.1 million to offset loss of X
Federal Revenue Sharing
Provide permanent base adjustment of $2.3 million to offset loss of X
Urban Mass Transit Assistance
1991 Home Rule Option
Exclude all expenditures associated with Aviation, Water, Wastewater X
and Refuse
1995 Home Rule Option
Exclude all expenditures associated with Aviation, Water and Wastewater X
1997 Permanent Base Adjustment
Provide a permanent base adjustment of $29 million to allow increased X
Transit services
Page 84
Approved
by Voters
Yes No
1999 Home Rule Option
Establish the expenditure limit at the budget X
2003 Home Rule Option
Establish the expenditure limit at the budget X
2007 Home Rule Option
Establish the expenditure limit at the budget X
2011 Home Rule Option
Established the expenditure limit at the budget X
2015 Home Rule Option
Established the expenditure limit at the budget X
2020 Home Rule Option
Established the expenditure limit at the budget X
Page 85
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
Phoenix, designated as the 35th Avenue and Carter Road Annexation. Further request
to authorize current Maricopa County zoning to continue in effect until municipal
zoning is applied to the annexed territory.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Pew & Lake, PLC, Reese Anderson and Jon
Gillespie for the purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed
annexation conforms to current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised
Statutes section 9-471 regarding annexation. The City Clerk Department has received
signed petitions representing 100 percent of the assessed value and 100 percent of
the owners, excluding utilities, within the proposed annexation area.
Public Outreach
A public hearing was conducted on Dec. 7, 2022, to allow the City Council to gather
community comment regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public
hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at
least three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by
first-class mail was sent to each property owner in the area proposed to be annexed.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcel 105-89-
013L, located at 35th Avenue and Carter Road (Attachment A). The annexation area
is approximately 4.93 acres (0.0077 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is zero
individuals.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 86
ATTACHMENT A
Page 87
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Purposes (Ordinance S-50307)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements for sidewalk and public
utility purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Atlas BL Dunlap, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 701 W. Dunlap Ave.
File: FN 230080
Council District: 3
Easement (b)
Applicant: 29th Avenue Holdings, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2211 E. Angela Drive
File: FN 230076
Council District: 3
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 88
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
- IFB 24-0017 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50288)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
City Wide Pest Control; Kaigan, LLC, dba Pestmaster; and Southwest Avian Solutions,
LLC, to provide various pest control treatment and management, wildlife relocation and
bird management, for the Citywide departments. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will
not exceed $1,605,746.
Summary
These contracts will provide various pest control treatments to prevent, destroy, repel,
or mitigate pests, and to relocate wildlife and birds. The services will be requested
throughout the City in various locations. City departments will utilize a combination of
methods to keep pests at an acceptable level for the health of staff and citizens. The
requested services are critical to citywide facility operations.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.
Three vendors submitted bids deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following vendors:
Selected Bidders
City Wide Pest Control
Kaigan, LLC, dba Pestmaster
Southwest Avian Solutions, LLC
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Page 89
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $1,605,746. Funding is available in
various department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 90
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
S-50289)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 148176 with Cintas Corporation to extend the contract term and add
additional expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $600,000.
Summary
This contract will provide Automated External Defibrillators (AED) that are used to treat
sudden cardiac arrest by sending an electric shock to the heart to restore normal
rhythm. An assessment of the Citywide inventory of AEDs was completed by Cintas,
and in consultation with the Fire Department, the City determined the placement and
location of the AEDs Citywide to ensure the availability of devices to assist in life safety
efforts.
The contract covers the leasing of equipment, installation, online compliance tool,
monthly inspections, medical direction, replacement of pads and batteries, and a
training component. The contract will be managed and implemented by the Public
Works Department. Extending the contract will allow the City to maintain its inventory
of AEDs while ensuring that the current inventory is up to date and functioning
properly.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Nov. 8, 2024, with an option to
extend through Nov. 8, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $600,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $2,239,380. Funds are available in the Aviation, Phoenix
Convention Center, Water Services and Public Works department budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Automated External Defibrillators (Lease) Contract 148176 (Ordinance S-44691) on
Page 91
June 6, 2018;
• Automated External Defibrillators (Lease) Contract 148176 (Ordinance S-45102) on
Nov. 7, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 92
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
50290)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 149569 with Interface Technical Training, to extend the contract term and add
additional funding. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $332,500.
Summary
This contract will provide continual technical training and staff development for critical
competencies and skill sets, in a variety of formats based on group or individual
training needs for the Water Services, Phoenix Municipal Court, Fire, Information
Technology Services, Aviation, and Public Works departments.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Feb. 28, 2025, with an option to
extend though Feb. 28, 2026.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $332,500 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $592,500. Funds are available in various department budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Interface Technical Training Contract 149569 (Ordinance S-45440) on March 20,
2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 93
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50298)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
BlueTriton Brands to provide bottled water and associated products for Citywide
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $1,000,000.
Summary
This contract will fulfill the continuous and Citywide demand for bottled water and
supplies, encompassing bottles of drinking water, bottles of purified/distilled laboratory
water, electric bottled water dispensers, cups, and cup holders on an as-needed basis.
This contract plays a crucial role in guaranteeing the City's ability to sustain ample and
easily accessible sources of clean drinking water, supporting the diverse needs of
various departments.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.
Three vendors submitted bids. Only one vendor, BlueTriton Brands, Inc., was deemed
to be responsive to posted specifications and responsible to provide the required
goods and services. Following an evaluation based on price, the procurement officer
recommends award to the following vendor:
Selected Bidder
BlueTriton Brands, Inc.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,000,000.
Page 94
Funding is available in the various department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 95
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
for Award (Ordinance S-50302)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to establish a qualified vendor
list and enter into contracts to provide armed, unarmed, and event security guard
services for Citywide departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$14 million.
Summary
The contracts will provide armed, unarmed, and event security guard services for
departments Citywide. Security guard services are utilized by various departments for
securing public and private property, monitoring City facilities, patrolling City parks,
providing fire watch services, securing City-sponsored events, and more. The
contracts will be available to all departments, with heavy usage from the Parks and
Recreation, Fire, Public Works, and Police departments. These contracts will help
ensure the safety and protection of City personnel, infrastructure, and properties.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).
Twelve offerors submitted qualifications and were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. An evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the
following minimum qualifications:
· Experience
· Qualifications
· Capacity
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following offerors:
· Superior Protection Services, Inc.
· Surveillance Security, Inc.
Page 96
· Universal Protection Service, LP, dba Allied Universal Security Services
· Windom Security Strategies Today, LLC
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2023, for a five-year term.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $14 million. Funding is available in the
various department budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 97
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for Award (Ordinance S-50303)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
CDW, LLC, dba CDW Government, LLC, and SHI International Corp., to provide
information technology services and solutions for Citywide use. Further request an
exception to the indemnity and assumption of liability provisions of Phoenix City Code
section 42-18. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $35,000,000.
Summary
These contracts will provide comprehensive product offerings for technology
equipment and services to support operations Citywide. Equipment needs include
desktops, notebooks, servers, software, and peripherals, as well as professional
services such as analysis, design, installation, and technical support. The range of
products and services from these contracts provide a wide variety of technology needs
for all City departments.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved determination memo due to special circumstances, being
that there is no alternative competition. Finance staff worked with the Information
Technology Services Department to review various cooperative contracts. The review
demonstrated that the Omnia Partners Cooperative Agreement with the City of Mesa
was the most favorable, as it included the best discounts on key products that the City
will be purchasing and provided the most comprehensive list of options.
Contract Term
The contracts will commence on or about Nov. 1, 2023, and expire on the expiration
date of the Master Agreement, Feb. 28, 2025, with a one-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $35,000,000 for the aggregate term.
Funding is available in Citywide department budgets.
Page 98
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 99
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Agreement for Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grant - Lehr Innovations, LLC
(Ordinance S-50304)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an individual
agreement with Lehr Innovations, LLC (Lehr) to disburse funds for the Agri-Food
Technology Innovation Grant program. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. Funding is available through the City’s
allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) federal funding and is in the
Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the strategic plan. There is no impact to
the General Fund. The additional aggregate expenditures included will not exceed
$10,872.
Summary
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP)
developed a food assistance plan to address the food needs of vulnerable populations
and communities impacted by COVID-19.
Economic Development and Innovation
Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grant Program
The Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grant program is designed to encourage
existing entrepreneurs, businesses, non-profits, educational institutions and
sustainable food cooperatives across the entire food system to address challenges
associated with climate change by adopting or expanding the use of agri-food
technology. Agri-food technology are innovative tools and solutions created within the
food supply chain to improve the food and agriculture industry.
Lehr was previously awarded a $99,000 grant June 15, 2022, and expended $88,128
during the original grant period of Aug. 31, 2022, to Aug. 31, 2023. Due to the extreme
summer heat experienced from June through August 2023, the entire scope of work
was not completed by the original contract end date. Therefore, OEP is requesting
approval to enter into this Agreement to provide the remaining balance of $10,872 to
Lehr to complete the grant scope of work. Lehr will use the remaining funds to
complete the project, which includes continued food production and measurement of
the differences in water usage, soil carbon sequestration, costs, and productivity
Page 100
between its existing Linking Ecosystem and Hardware for Regeneration (LEHR)
Gardens and traditional in-ground farming methods. The construction of a small urban
farm demonstration and testing site was developed under the original grant agreement
referenced above.
Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10, to implement and administer programs intended to prevent, prepare for and
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
Agreements may be extended based on continuous need and available funding, which
may be exercised by the City Manager, or his designee.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s
allocation of federal ARPA funding and is in the Phoenix Resilient Food System
category of the ARPA Strategic Plan approved by Mayor and Council.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Council approved the Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grants (Ordinance S-48802)
and award to Lehr on June 15, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Office of
Environmental Programs.
Page 101
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance Game Changer Fund (Ordinance S-50305)
Request approval for the City Manager, or his designee, for the City of Phoenix Office
of Environmental Programs (OEP) to submit a grant application to the Carbon Neutral
Cities Alliance (CNCA) Game Changer Fund Request for Proposals, Transforming
Food Systems for $200,000 to transform the local food system through the creation of
a Phoenix Circular Food Economy Pilot Project, and if awarded, to execute all
contracts and Memorandums of Agreement necessary to accept and disburse the
grant funds. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, grant funds in accordance with the terms of the aforementioned
grant and agreement.
Summary
The CNCA Game Changer Fund is available to fund development, adoption, and
implementation of game-changing climate work to achieve prosperity, social equity,
resilience and a better quality of life for all. The focus of funding is to improve local
food systems - especially by addressing emissions embodied in food transportation,
storage, packaging and food waste products. Up to $200,000 is available over a two-
year grant period.
OEP plans to submit a grant proposal for $200,000 to circularize the food economy in
Phoenix by creating connections throughout the food system. The pilot project will
connect food producers, processors, aggregators/distributors, consumers, restaurants,
agri-food tech businesses, and composting service providers. The pilot project will
serve the needs of residents impacted by food and climate justice issues, strengthen
the connections between restaurants and food producers, shorten food supply chains,
eliminate food loss and waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote
regenerative food production of culturally appropriate foods, and fortify the local food
system.
Grant Partners
OEP intends to partner with the following organizations to implement the circularization
of the Phoenix food economy:
· Cihuapactli Collective - grow culturally appropriate foods for residents and
Page 102
restaurants through regenerative agriculture methods and receive compost
generated by residents and restaurants to regenerate soil and start the circular
process anew.
· Food Forest Cooperative - grow culturally appropriate foods for residents and
restaurants through regenerative agriculture methods and receive compost
generated by residents and restaurants to regenerate soil and start the circular
process anew.
· Sun Produce Cooperative - aggregate from the growers (Cihuapactli and Food
Forest Cooperative), distribute to residents and restaurants, and use the FreshKube
to ensure freshness and fight food loss and waste.
· FreshKube - provide new innovative cold storage containers for transportation of
produce specifically designed for the Phoenix climate and for local, small growers.
· Recycled City - provide compost pick up and processing and deliver finished
compost back to growers (Cihuapactli and Food Forest Cooperative).
Consumers and restaurants benefit from the receipt of locally grown produce with food
waste diverted from the landfill through composting. Growers benefit with a market to
local restaurants. A new agri-food tech business benefits by increasing the use of their
innovative product in the marketplace. The CNCA grant also aids in achieving the
goals established in the 2025 Phoenix Food Action Plan and the 2021 Phoenix Climate
Action Plan.
The grant will be managed by the OEP.
The deadline to submit a proposal is Nov. 7, 2023. Award announcements are
expected by Nov. 30, 2023.
Contract Term
The grant term is for up to two years.
Financial Impact
No match or general fund dollars are required for this grant.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Office of
Environmental Programs.
Page 103
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Services for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventories (Ordinance S-50306)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona State University (ASU) Global
Institute of Sustainability (GIOS) to conduct Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Inventories for City operations and community-wide for the calendar year 2022 and to
conduct other services related to operations of the Office of Environmental Programs
(OEP). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The agreement value will not exceed $104,780.
Summary
OEP is proposing to enter into an IGA with the ASU GIOS for consultant services to
calculate 2022 GHG emissions based on most recent available data. ASU GIOS has
conducted GHG inventories for City operations and community-wide since 2012. ASU
reviews the data provided by the City and measures emission reductions to track the
City’s progress on meeting its reduction goals. OEP plans to conduct GHG inventories
every two years, consistent with the City Council approved Climate Action Plan.
OEP, in coordination with City departments, prepared the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
2021 Edition that was approved by City Council on Oct. 12, 2021. It is expected that
additional studies, research, or evaluation may be needed in a number of sectors
included within the CAP, in addition to the potential need for assistance in other
environmental and sustainability areas that are under the purview of OEP. Therefore,
OEP has expanded the scope of this IGA to include the following additional services:
conduct research, evaluation, studies, and develop plans for environmental and
sustainability efforts, including an update to the municipal operations and community
GHG emissions inventories with calendar year 2022 data. Additionally, the existing
GHG emissions inventory will be updated to allow for the City to compare GHG
emissions across all previous inventories. By executing this IGA, OEP will have the
capability to engage ASU as needed and feasible, provided funding is available.
Contract Term
The term of the IGA will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. The
Page 104
IGA may be extended based on continuous need and available funding, which may be
exercised by the City Manager, or his designee.
Financial Impact
The agreement value will not exceed $104,780 with funding available in the OEP Air
Quality/Climate Fund using General Funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Office of
Environmental Programs.
Page 105
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 157624 with Steel & Spark, LLC to extend the contract term. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all the funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $191,833.
Summary
This contract will provide the installation of the XWing temporary shelter units at a
temporary location prior to the permanent install. The City's Office of Homeless
Solutions will use the XWings to provide temporary shelter to persons experiencing
homelessness. The additional funds are required for the Contractor to provide
galvanized frames, door landings, and other hardware as needed to install the shelters
at the temporary locations.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through Dec. 31, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $191,833 in additional funds, the revised total value of the contract
will not exceed $3,191,833. Funds are available in the Human Services Department's
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· XWing Non-Congregate Shelter, Contract 157624, (Ordinance S-49284) on Dec.
14, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 106
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-50293)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Holly Street Studio, LLC to provide Architectural Services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection (CA&I) services for the Burton Barr
College Depot project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $120,000.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide the design for an infrastructure enhancement
to expand the footprint of College Depot on the second floor of the Burton Barr Library.
Holly Street Studio, LLC’s services include, but are not limited to: final construction
plans; specifications; engineering estimates; data collection information; surveying;
materials reports; various utility adjustments; prepare the required documents for
Environmental Clearance; post design bid assistance through award of construction;
possible construction administration and inspection; and other work for a complete
project.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Page 107
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Holly Street Studio, LLC
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: Jammonstudios LLC
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Holly Street Studio, LLC will not exceed $120,000, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Neighborhood Services Department's Operating budget
utilizing Community Development Block Grant Neighborhood Enhancement and
Infrastructure Program funds. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Public Outreach
Public outreach will be provided as directed by the City.
Location
1221 N. Central Ave.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Alan Stephenson,
the Neighborhood Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 108
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Facility Grant Award (Ordinance S-50297)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-48599
to increase the contract award from $85,690 to $150,000 and extend the contract term
to June 30, 2024 for The Opportunity Tree. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General
Fund.
Summary
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public facility funding assists non-profit
organizations expand services to support the needs of low- to moderate-income
Phoenix residents. Eligible activities include acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, or
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to non-profit owned public
facilities. City Council approved fiscal year 2022-23 CDBG public facility grant funding
for local non-profits, including The Opportunity Tree.
The Opportunity Tree provides services to Phoenix residents with intellectual and
developmental disabilities and was awarded funding to implement ADA enhancements
at the 3146 E. Windsor Ave. location in Phoenix. Construction costs have increased
considerably since the original project budget was submitted due to the construction
cost increases post pandemic, especially in the construction industry. Additional time is
necessary as development of project plans were delayed due to unforeseen
circumstances in obtaining infrastructure assessments, physical space considerations,
and permit review.
Contract Term
The original authorized contract term was July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, with an
option to extend through Dec. 31, 2023. If this item is approved, the term of the
contract for only The Opportunity Tree will be initiated on or about Dec. 1, 2023, and
run through June 30, 2024, with an option to extend through Sept. 30, 2024, that may
be exercised at the discretion of the City Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Contract award for The Opportunity Tree will
Page 109
increase from $85,690 to $150,000. Contracts are funded by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development CDBG funds. Sufficient CDBG funding exists to
accommodate the request. Payments may be made up to agreement limits, which may
extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Community Development Block Grant Public Service and Public
Facility Grant Award Recommendations was approved by the City Council on May 11,
2022.
Location
3146 E. Windsor Ave.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services Department.
Page 110
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
50300)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the term and
contract value of Agreement 157842 with Joshua Weiner, dba Flowcus. The term will
be extended through June 30, 2024, with an option to extend through Dec. 31, 2024;
and increase the value by $25,000 for a not to exceed of $250,000. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. There is no
impact to the general fund.
Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to allow additional time and funding to complete the
Eastlake Park Neighborhood placemaking artwork. This artwork, approved by City
Council June 2022, also supports the Choice Neighborhood grant activities.
Unforeseen delays with the commencement of construction has persisted since
February 2023 to obtain environmental review and release of grant funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These processes are
necessary to ensure compliance with the Community Development Grant Block
(CDBG) project fund source requirements, as well as ensure alignment with the
Choice Neighborhood program and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area.
Additional funding is necessary due to increased construction costs since the original
project budget was agreed to in February 2023.
In June of 2022, City Council approved the execution of a contract with Joshua
Weiner, dba Flowcus, with a contract term initiating on or around July 1, 2022, for a
maximum term of nine months. After the June 2022 Council action, staff worked with
the owners of the two prominent site locations to finalize the exact placement of the
artwork. Due to the delay in finalizing the locations, work under the contract could not
begin when originally planned.
In January of 2023, Council amended Ordinance S-48805 with an updated contract
term, initiating on or about Jan. 1, 2023, for a six-month contract term, with an option
to extend for an additional three months. On Feb. 14, 2023, staff executed the contract
with Joshua Weiner, dba Flowcus.
Page 111
Since February of 2023, staff worked to obtain environmental review and release grant
funds from HUD.
Contract Term
The authorized contract term was on or about Jan. 1, 2023, for a six month contract
term, with an option to extend for three months, exercised at the discretion of the City
Manager or designee. If this item is approved, the term of the contract will be extended
through June 30, 2024, with an option to extend through Dec. 31, 2024, that may be
exercised at the discretion of the City Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $250,000. Funding is available in the
Neighborhood Services Department's Capital Improvement Program budget using
HUD CDBG funds. There is no impact to the General Fund. Payments may be made
up to agreement limits, which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On Oct. 27, 2021, the design agreement with Flowcus was approved by City
Council.
· On June 1, 2022, the Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee
recommended City Council approval to enter into contract with Joshua Weiner, dba
Flowcus, by a 4-0 vote.
· On June 15, 2022, City Council approved entering into contract with Joshua Weiner,
dba Flowcus.
· On Jan. 25, 2023, City Council approved an updated contract term with Joshua
Weiner, dba Flowcus.
Location
Southwest corner of 16th and Washington streets, and southwest corner of 16th and
Jefferson streets
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services Department.
Page 112
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50292)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Holly Street Studio, LLC to provide Architectural Services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection (CA&I) services for the Bookmobile
for Underserved Areas project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments
to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $235,000.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide the design for an asphalt pad for a
bookmobile, asphalt parking lot, restrooms, lighting, utilities, a garage to house the
bookmobile and security cameras on an empty City owned parcel of land on the corner
of Lower Buckeye Road and 67th Avenue.
Holly Street Studio, LLC’s services include, but are not limited to: final construction
plans; specifications; engineering estimates; data collection information; surveying;
materials reports; various utility adjustments; prepare the required documents for
Environmental Clearance; post design bid assistance through award of construction;
possible construction administration and inspection; and other work for a complete
project.
Page 113
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Holly Street Studio, LLC
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: Jammonstudios LLC
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Holly Street Studio, LLC will not exceed $235,000, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Neighborhood Services Department's Operating budget
utilizing Community Development Block Grant Neighborhood Enhancement and
Infrastructure Program funds. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Public Outreach
Public outreach will be provided as directed by the City.
Location
6620 W. Lower Buckeye Road
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Alan Stephenson,
the Neighborhood Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 114
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request City Council approval of an amendment to the 2020-24 Consolidated Plan’s
2022-23 Annual Action Plan to include the City’s plan to modify the use of the property
at 1229 E. Washington St. acquired with Community Development Grant Funds.
Summary
The 2020-24 Consolidated Plan defines how the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG),
and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds will be used to
address the priorities and goals outlined in the five-year Consolidated Plan and is
carried out through Annual Action Plans. The 2022-23 Annual Action Plan provides a
concise summary of activities the City will prioritize in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to address
the priority needs identified by the community in support of the goals outlined in the
Consolidated Plan.
This amendment to the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan will outline the City’s plans to
modify the use of the property at 1229 E. Washington St.
The original use for 1229 E. Washington St., a CDBG acquired building, provided
Arizona Bridge to Independent Living space to operate a disabled persons social
services training center and administrative office. The City of Phoenix Community
Assistance Program (CAP) intends to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Neighborhood Services Department for 1229 E. Washington St. to provide on-
scene crisis response, behavioral health, victim services/advocacy, and substance use
supportive services. CAP’s Crisis Response and Behavioral Health Units will be
dispatched through the 9-1-1 Regional Dispatch system. Crisis Response Units are
considered co-response units with Phoenix Police or Fire departments. Behavioral
Health Units may respond in a single unit response, or co-response capacity, with
Phoenix Police or Fire staff. This decentralized location will be utilized by CAP staff
including crisis response dispatched units, for the specific low-and-moderate income
response area, caseworkers, trainers, peer support specialists, and office and
supervisor personnel dedicated to the CAP operations. Crisis Response and
Behavioral Health Units will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year-round.
Page 115
The response area for this location is generally bounded by 19th Avenue to the west,
Indian School Road to the north, Baseline Road to the south, and 48th Street to the
east. The total population residing in the response area is 375,230. Of this, 230,675, or
61.5 percent of the population, is low-and-moderate income.
Additionally, as a minor use, Phoenix Fire Department’s Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) will have staff at this location. CERT trains residents,
neighborhoods, community organizations, and businesses in disaster preparedness,
disaster fire suppression, basic disaster medical operations, light search and rescue
operations, and terrorism awareness. CERT also conducts meaningful outreach to
individuals and families experiencing homelessness relative to heat safety and climate-
related crisis prevention. Staff at this location will provide outreach in the same low-
and-moderate income area.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee recommended approval of
the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan on May 4, 2022, by a 4-0 vote.
· City Council approved the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan on May 11, 2022.
Public Outreach
The City of Phoenix published a 30-day public comment period notice to obtain
community and stakeholder input relative to this amendment. Public notice dates: Oct.
2, 2023, through Oct. 31, 2023.
Location
1229 E. Washington St.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Gina
Montes, and the Neighborhood Services and Fire departments.
Page 116
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
50281)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Creative Machines for an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the design, fabrication,
and installation of four art structures along 55th Avenue between Camelback and
Indian School roads. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item.
Summary
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-28 Public Art Plan includes funding for artwork identified as
Shade, Cooling, and Heat Mitigation. In collaboration with the Parks and Recreation
and Street Transportation departments, the 55th Avenue Promenade has been
identified as the location for this initiative. Artwork will be located within the median
greenspace along 55th Avenue, between Camelback and Indian School roads in
District 5. The artwork will be made of durable materials that can survive the desert
climate, include shade elements supporting the City of Phoenix Cool Corridors
Initiative, and enhance the pedestrian experience of this unique neighborhood amenity.
After reviewing a pool of 144 applicants, a three-person panel recommended Creative
Machines as the selected artist for the project. Creative Machines was recommended
based on his experience creating site-specific public art projects and demonstrated
ability to involve the community meaningfully. Community engagement is at the center
of public art projects when approved. The artist will work with the nearby
neighborhood, schools, and community members on the project’s design.
The selection panel included Leticia Castro, John F. Long Elementary School Principal;
Andrea Ramirez, District 5 resident; Victoria Sajadi, Public Art Coordinator, Scottsdale
Arts.
Financial Impact
The 55th Avenue Promenade public art project, under the title of Shade, Cooling, and
Heat Mitigation, is one of 42 projects in the FY 2023-28 Public Art Plan that the City
Council approved on July 3, 2023. The proposed $300,000 budget will cover all costs
related to the artwork's design, fabrication, and installation. Additional funding in the
Page 117
Plan for this project covers staff time, contingency, and administrative costs. Funding is
available in the Public Art Program using Arizona Highway User Revenue funds and
Water funds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
this item on Sept. 12, 2023, by a vote of 12-0 and one abstention. The Economic
Development and Housing Subcommittee reviewed and approved this item by a 4-0
vote at its October 11, 2023 meeting.
Location
55th Avenue between Camelback and Indian School roads
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Office of Arts
and Culture.
Page 118
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Eric Powell for an amount not to exceed $80,000 for the design and installation of
artwork for the State Route 303 Public Art Project.
Summary
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-28 Public Art Plan includes a project to integrate public art
into the State Route 303 Improvement Project from Lake Pleasant Parkway to I-17.
The project, a partnership between the City of Phoenix, the Maricopa Association of
Governments, and the Arizona Department of Transportation, adds additional traffic
lanes in each direction, new traffic interchanges at I-17, 43rd Avenue, and 51st
Avenue, and bridges to accommodate a future interchange at 67th Avenue in District
1. The public art enhancements will be integrated into traffic interchanges at 67th
Avenue and I-17. Enhancements will be cast cement reliefs and may be included on
traffic interchange bridge piers, abutments, safety barriers, and other site
improvements.
Using a qualified vendor list, a three-person selection committee recommended Eric
Powell based on his demonstrated two-dimensional design skills that would translate
well into cement rustications and his demonstrated ability to work closely with design
teams and involve the community meaningfully. The selection panel included Myesha
Harris, Special Project Administrator, City of Phoenix Street Transportation
Department; Joe Diaz, City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Deputy Director; Eric
Wilson, Horticulturist, City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department.
Financial Impact
The State Route 303 Public Art Project is one of 42 projects in the FY 2023-28 Public
Art Plan that the City Council approved on July 3, 2023. The proposed $80,000 will
cover all costs related to the design and construction oversight of the artwork,
including the artist’s time working with city staff, project consultants, and the local
community to produce a complete and buildable design. Additional funding in the Plan
for this project will cover staff time, contingency, and administrative costs. Funding is
available in the Public Art Program using Arizona Highway User Revenue funds.
Page 119
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
this item on Sept. 12, 2023, by a vote of 12-0 and one abstention. The Economic
Development and Housing Subcommittee reviewed and approved this item by a 4-0
vote at its Oct. 11, 2023 meeting.
Location
Traffic interchanges at 67th Avenue and I-17
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Office of Arts
and Culture.
Page 120
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for Award (Ordinance S-50286)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Tennant Sales and Service Company to provide maintenance, repair and purchase of
Tennant brand custodial equipment for the Phoenix Convention Center Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $535,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the necessary labor, parts, supplies, and equipment needed
to maintain, repair, inspect, and clean Tennant custodial equipment. The equipment
includes sweepers, scrubbers, and carpet extractors and is necessary to ensure that
Tennant equipment performs at optimal levels to maintain the cleanliness of the
facilities and to allow work to be completed in an efficient manner.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. The Tennant Sales and Service Company
is the only authorized service provider certified to maintain and repair Tennant brand
products and machinery.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $535,000 for the five-year aggregate
term.
Funding is available in the Phoenix Convention Center Department Operating and
Capital Outlay budgets.
Page 121
Location
Phoenix Convention Center
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.
Page 122
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50309)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for, and
accept, if awarded, up to $1,678,382 from the Fire Incident Management System Grant
Program. This program will provide funding for the deployment of a secure incident
management platform for fire and medical response in the Phoenix 9-1-1 system.
Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and for the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. If not approved, the grant, if
awarded, would be declined.
Summary
The Fire Incident Management System Grant Program, administered through the
Arizona Department of Administration State Grants Office, offers grants to fire
departments for software and hardware that help improve incident management and
ensure clear communication, safety, and efficiency during emergency response. Funds
from this award will be used to procure hardware, software, and application licensing
that integrates with the Fire Department Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. The
software will assist with resource tracking, messaging and collaboration, organizing
and coordinating responses, and will significantly enhance emergency response
capabilities and fire incident data collection.
Procurement Information
The Fire Department will administer the grant in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.
Contract Term
The three-year grant Period of Performance is projected to begin on or around Oct. 31,
2023.
Financial Impact
The grant does not require a local match. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 123
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50310)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for,
accept, and disburse Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds totaling
$1,259,456 for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 National Urban Search & Rescue (US&R)
Response System Readiness Cooperative Agreement. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item.
Summary
The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA provide support and funding for the
maintenance and readiness of the National Urban Search & Rescue (US&R)
Response System. The purpose of this readiness cooperative agreement is to support
the continued development and maintenance of a national US&R capability. This
cooperative agreement provides direction to the Phoenix Fire Department for the use
of funding to provide administrative and program management, training, support,
equipment cache procurement, maintenance, and storage.
The Phoenix Fire Department is the sponsoring agency of Arizona Task Force One (AZ
-TF1), one of 28 national Urban Search and Rescue response system task forces that
can rapidly deploy skilled personnel and state-of-the-art equipment to sites of natural
disasters, terrorist attacks, and building collapses. In addition to search and rescue,
task force members provide immediate medical treatment to survivors, hazardous
materials monitoring, and stabilization capabilities. In the past, AZ-TF1 has been
deployed to Hurricanes Florence, Harvey, Irma, Rita, Katrina, Ike, Gustav, the
Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 World Trade Center in New York City.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement will be for three years. The contract will run from Sept. 1,
2023, through Aug. 31, 2026.
Financial Impact
The Fire Department will receive an amount not to exceed $1,259,456 from the FEMA
for the FY 2023 National US&R Response System Readiness Cooperative Agreement.
Page 124
There is no impact to the General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 125
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
50291)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Freightliner of Arizona, LLC dba Velocity Truck Centers for the purchase of three
technical support vehicles. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The total value will not exceed $1,020,162.
Summary
The Public Works Department is seeking to purchase three technical support vehicles
for the Phoenix Fire Department. These vehicles are critical to the technical rescue
teams in the department and are replacing current technical support vehicles that are
aging. They transport equipment cache to incidents that include mountain, trench,
confined space, and structural type rescues. These vehicles are equipped with rope,
shoring systems for trenches, air carts, and other technical equipment necessary for
the technical rescue teams.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. Due to the unique build specifications
reviewed and deemed acceptable by Fire and Public Works staff, the manufacturer
Freightliner of Arizona, LLC dba Velocity Truck Centers, was selected.
Contract Term
The item will be for the one-time purchase of the technical support vehicles starting on
or around Nov. 1, 2023.
Financial Impact
This item will have a value of up to $1,020,162. Funding is available in the Fire
Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua, and the Fire and Public Works departments.
Page 126
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50308)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
365 Labs, LLC, to provide a false alarm tracking system for the Police Department.
Further request an exception to the indemnity and assumption of liability provisions of
Phoenix City Code section 42-18. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$572,000.
Summary
This contract will provide a vendor-supported, cloud-hosted web application system
called 365 false alarm to replace the current Public Records and Services Unit's false
alarm tracking system (FATS). FATS was built on depreciated technologies no longer
supported by Microsoft. The False Alarms Unit is responsible for administering false
alarm violations, new permits, permit renewals, payment processing, invoicing, and
letter generation, and provides a public-facing portal for customer registration and
payments through the system. The 365 false alarm will interface with the computer-
aided dispatch system to automatically import false alarms and connect to the City of
Phoenix's systems applications and processing (SAP) for billing purposes. It is critical
to replace the current outdated system with a cloud-hosted vendor-supported system,
which will help the False Alarms Unit manage over 162,000 business and residential
accounts with about 50,000 active lawful permits in the current system. This program
is a significant revenue stream for the Police Department.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved determination memo due to special circumstances, being
without competition. 365 Labs offers the modules, interfaces, and functionality needed
to replace the existing system with vendor supported cloud hosted solutions. The
vendor completed a Service Organization Control 2, Type 2 security audit compliance
process for their cloud-hosted solution that meets the City's Information Security and
Page 127
Privacy Office's requirements.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, for a five year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $572,000 for the five year aggregate
term.
Funding is available in the Police Department budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 128
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
COOP 24-0101 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50311)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc., to provide firearms (weapons
lethal, less-lethal, accessories, consumables) for the Police Department. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total value of the contract will not exceed $1,655,500.
Summary
This contract will provide lethal and less-lethal weapons, accessories, and
consumables for use by the Phoenix Police Department's Training and Homeland
Defense Bureau, Special Assignments Unit, and Downtown Operations Unit. The
products available on this contract will equip officers with additional options to utilize
during high stress incidents to reduce violent encounters between police officers and
community members in furtherance of the Advanced Less Lethal Pilot Program
(ALLPP). The ALLPP was created to provide front-line officers with contemporary less
lethal options for use in de-escalating dynamic encounters and is being expanded for
use throughout additional precincts.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved determination memo based on special circumstances,
alternative competition. The cooperative contract sought is from a reputable source,
Diamondback Police Supply Co., Inc., as a procurement solution that offers
competitive pricing by utilizing a percentage off of the manufacturer's suggested retail
price/list across multiple manufacturers.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, for a three-year term with two one-
year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,655,500 for the five year aggregate
term.
Page 129
Funding is available in the Police Department budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 130
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a ground lease
with Bandura & Sons, Inc. (Bandura) at 2933 E. Washington St. at Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX).
Summary
Bandura is requesting to enter into a Ground Lease for approximately 680 square feet
of land north of PHX at 2933 E. Washington St. for parking employee vehicles for its
adjacent business. Bandura is currently using the area under a temporary license
agreement that expires on Jan. 1, 2024.
Contract Term
The term will be for five years, with five one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Rent will be approximately $40 per month ($.70 per square foot). Rent will be adjusted
based on market rate as determined by appraisal beginning with the fourth year of the
agreement; future adjustments will be applied every three years thereafter. Total
anticipated rent from this ground lease over the term will be approximately $2,380.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on Sept. 21,
2023, by vote of 6-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 2933 E. Washington St.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 131
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Repair Contract - RFA 24-0052 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50287)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
ADB Safegate Americas, LLC (ADB Safegate) to provide preventative maintenance
and repair services for ADB Safegate's airfield lighting control and monitoring systems
(ALCMS) for the Aviation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will be up to
$1.3 million.
Summary
The Aviation Department has Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved and
certified ALCMS systems located at Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Phoenix Deer
Valley, and Phoenix Goodyear Airports. The ALCMS systems are required to maintain
compliance with federal regulations and are proprietary systems to ADB Safegate. This
contract will provide preventative maintenance, repairs, and technical support services
to ensure the systems maintain compliance with the federal airport lighting equipment
certification program.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on Special Circumstances -
without competition - restrictive specifications, as the ALCMS systems are proprietary
to ADB Safegate and must be maintained by ADB Safegate trained technicians.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The total contract value will be up to $1.3 million for the five-year contract term.
Page 132
Funding is available in the Aviation Department budget.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road,
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, 702 W. Deer Valley Road,
Phoenix Goodyear Airport, 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council Districts: 1, 8, and Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 133
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50279)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
contracts with Inland Kenworth (US) Inc., RWC International, LTD., Freightliner of
Arizona, LLC DBA Velocity Trucking and Cummins Inc., to provide heavy-duty brake
services for the Public Works Department. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will
not exceed $3,075,015.
Summary
This contract will provide brake services for 4,000 heavy-duty vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds or greater. The contract will provide brake service on
steer axle and drive axle components on the heavy-duty fleet such as fire equipment,
refuse trucks and street equipment that provides critical services to residential
customers.
Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 24-FSD-019 was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Four offers were received, and all are deemed to be
responsive to posted specifications and responsible to provide the required goods and
services. Following an evaluation of the total cost of two groups, drum brakes and disc
brakes, the following vendors are being recommended for award:
Inland Kenworth (US) Inc.: $6,445.58
RWC International, LTD.: $13,383.75
Freightliner of Arizona, LLC DBA Velocity Trucking: $15,840.60
Cummins Inc.: $17,226.00
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2024, for an initial three-year term with two
one-year options to extend, for a total contract term of five years.
Financial Impact
The contracts will have an annual estimated spend of $615,003 with an aggregate
Page 134
value that will not exceed $3,075,015.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Page 135
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Award (Ordinance S-50295)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
contracts with RWC International Ltd., Balar Holding Corp., Bingham Equipment
Company, Cummins Inc., Norwood Equipment Inc., Rush Truck Centers of Arizona
Inc., Velocity Truck Centers DBA Freightliner of Arizona LLC, Empire Southwest LLC,
Simpson Norton Corporation, Redsky Fire Apparatus LLC, Sonsray Machinery LLC,
and Southwest JCB Inc., H&E Equipment Services, Inc., and Hughes Fire Equipment,
Inc. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $ 30,949,590.
Summary
This contract will provide local support mechanisms for diverse product lines, which
ensures that the City receives the best pricing for Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) parts and service. Without access to the OEM dealerships, the Fleet Services
Division would experience increased costs and downtime when purchasing parts and
service through another mechanism other than the OEM supplier. Equipment that will
benefit from this contract includes, but is not limited to, fire apparatus, street sweepers,
refuse trucks, off-road equipment, and various heavy-duty trucks and equipment. This
equipment is bought and maintained by the Public Works Department and is utilized by
multiple departments to provide essential City services.
Procurement Information
In accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. normal competition
was waived as the result of a Determination Memo, citing that there is only one source
for this essential service and parts. The above-mentioned vendors are the only
authorized distributors for the State of Arizona for the product line they carry.
Contract Term
The initial three-year contract term will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2023, with two one-
year option years to be exercised in increments of up to one year, with a total contract
option term of five years.
Page 136
Financial Impact
This contract will have an estimated annual expenditure of $6,189,918, with a value
not to exceed $30,949,590.
Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Page 137
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with Arizona Hardwood Floor Supply, Inc. and Triangle Services, Inc. for
hard surface floor work services in City-owned facilities. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The value of the
agreements will not exceed $225,000.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining hard floors in City-owned
facilities. These agreements will provide floor cleaning, polishing, and refinishing
services to specialty flooring, to include hard wood floors, vinyl composition tile, and
other flooring located in the City's museums, basketball courts, and historic buildings.
Procurement Information
Request for Quote 24-FMD-020 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Two offers were received by the Public Works Department on Sept. 6,
2023. The offers were evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all specifications,
terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required services. The prices
were evaluated based on an all or none bid total per square foot for various types of
services and flooring. The offers submitted by Arizona Hardwood Floor Supply, Inc.
and Triangle Services, Inc. were deemed fair and reasonable.
Group 1 - Various Hard Floor Surfaces:
· Triangle Services, Inc.: $3.60 bid total
· Arizona Hardwood Floor Supply, Inc.: $6.83 bid total
Group 2 - Wood Floors:
· Arizona Hardwood Floor Supply, Inc.: $48.15 bid total
Contract Term
The initial one-year term of the agreements will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2024. The
agreements will include four one-year options to extend, for a total agreement term of
up to five years if all options are exercised.
Page 138
Financial Impact
The value of the agreements, including all option years is $225,000, including all
applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $45,000.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Page 139
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services Amendment - WS85500418 (Ordinance S-50283)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152069 with Hunter Contracting Co. to provide additional construction
services for the 16-Inch Paradise Valley Zone 3C Improvements project. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within
the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for services
included in this amendment will not exceed $6.5 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct approximately 21,500 linear feet of 16-Inch
Ductile Iron Pipe transmission main within Pressure Zone 3C in the Town of Paradise
Valley and a new Pressure Reducing Station to relief Booster Station 3C-B1 and Well
235.
This amendment is necessary because the project was delayed due to high costs of
pipeline construction and difficulties with obtaining easements for access to the
proposed Pressure Reducing Valve Station. In addition, it will ensure that both phases
of the project can be completed. This amendment will provide additional funds and
time to the agreement.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is five years from the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services
was approved for an amount not to exceed $150,000, including all subcontractor
and reimbursable costs.
· The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services was
Page 140
approved for an amount not to exceed $9,875,000, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $6.5 million, for a
new total amount not to exceed $16,525,000, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Water
Revenue budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments. Payments may
be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services
Agreement 152069 (Ordinance S-46612) on May 20, 2020.
Location
Along Shea Boulevard from west of Tatum Boulevard to Mockingbird Lane and
Invergordon Road
Council District: 3 and Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Water Services
Department and the City Engineer.
Page 141
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - ST87600140 (Ordinance S-50284)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with T.Y. Lin International, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include design
services for the Rio Reimagined: 3rd Street Rio Salado Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will
not exceed $2.8 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to design a bicycle and pedestrian bridge across the Rio
Salado River along the 3rd Street alignment and to improve the southern bank trails of
the Rio Salado River by adding low-emitting solar pedestrian-scale lighting and
pathway amenities in the south side of the Rio Salado River footprint between Central
Avenue and 40th Street.
T.Y. Lin International, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: develop final design
plans, specifications, cost estimates, geotechnical investigations, hydraulic analysis
model, and technical reports; coordination with Construction Management at Risk
contractor for constructability reviews to produce contract documents for obligation and
construction; and other work as required for a complete project. Additionally, the scope
includes, but is not limited to: coordination of tasks with multiple stakeholders including
Page 142
Federal Highway Administration team, the City Environmental and Right of Way teams
for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance, 408 permitting
requirements and Right of Way clearance purposes.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: T.Y. Lin International, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Parsons Transportation Group, Inc.
Rank 3: Schlaich Bergermann and Partner, LP (SBP)
Rank 4: Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for T.Y. Lin International, Inc. will not exceed $2.8 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of the
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity program. Funding is
available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Public Outreach
T.Y. Lin International, Inc. will work with a public engagement firm contracted by the
City to provide public outreach to inform selection of the preferred bridge type and
associated aesthetics.
Page 143
Location
3rd Street between Central Avenue and 40th Street along Rio Salado River footprint
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.
Page 144
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Risk Services - WS85230059 (Ordinance S-50294)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Sundt Construction, Inc. (Sundt) to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant
Rehabilitation 2023 project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $52 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the following treatment systems: Chemical
Feed Stations, West Plant Bar Screens, Solid Handling Facility Polymer Feed System,
Sludge Collectors, Reservoir Electrical Building, East Plant Sedimentation Basins 4-6
Launders, and East Plant Raw Water Pumps.
Sundt will begin in an agency support role for Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction Services. Sundt will assume the risk of delivering the project through a
Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.
Sundt’s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to: providing detailed cost
estimating and knowledge of marketplace conditions; project planning and scheduling;
construction phasing and scheduling that will minimize interruption to City operations;
alternate systems evaluation and constructability studies; assist with ways to gain
efficiencies in project delivery; long-lead procurement studies and procurement of long
-lead items; assistance in the permitting processes; and participating with the City in a
process to establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal for the project.
Sundt’s initial Construction Services will include preparation of a Guaranteed
Maximum Price proposal provided under the agreement. Sundt will be responsible for
construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling the SBE program
requirements. Sundt will be required to solicit bids from prequalified subcontractors
and to perform the work using the City’s subcontractor selection process. Sundt may
also compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.
Page 145
Sundt’s additional Construction Services include, but are not limited to: arranging
procurement of materials and equipment; scheduling and managing site operations;
providing quality controls, bid, award, and manage all construction related contracts
while meeting City bid requirements; and maintaining a safe work site for all project
participants.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Sundt Construction, Inc.
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: PCL Construction, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Sundt Construction, Inc. will not exceed $52 million, including
all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
Intersection of McDowell Road and Lindsay Road, Mesa, Ariz.
Council District: Out of City
Page 146
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 147
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contracting Services - 4108JOC214 (Ordinance S-50282)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a master
agreement with Ludvik Electric Co., to provide Water and Wastewater Process Control
and Security Improvements Job Order Contracting services for the Water Services
Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement
as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services
will not exceed $20 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
Ludvik Electric Co.'s (Ludvik) services will be used on an as-needed basis to provide
Water and Wastewater Process Control and Security Improvements services for
installation/replacement of electrical and instrumentation equipment, programming
remote terminal units, emergency repairs, pre/post construction services and
engineering services as required. Additionally, Ludvik will be responsible for fulfilling
Small Business Enterprise program requirements.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
Page 148
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Ludvik Electric Co.
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: Industrial Power Solutions
Contract Term
The term of the master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $20 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The master agreement value for Ludvik will not exceed $20 million, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under this master agreement for up to $2 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department’s Capital Improvement Program
and/or Operating budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and
approve funding availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments
may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Page 149
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Agreement 150561 with Kemira Water Solutions, Inc. for the
purchase of ferric chloride, as needed, by the Water Services Department. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $7,750,000.
Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to provide additional funds to Agreement 150561
with Kemira Water Solutions, which will allow for the as needed purchase of ferric
chloride to assist in the Water Production and Wastewater Treatment processes. Ferric
chloride is used in the water and wastewater industry as a coagulant and flocculant to
help remove impurities and suspend partials from water, making it suitable for
treatment and safe for discharge into the environment.
Due to rising costs incurred by chemicals over the past several years this agreement
requires additional funding to support the purchase of ferric chloride until procurement
solicits for a new contract to begin July 1, 2024.
Contract Term
The agreement term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2024.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Ferric Chloride was for an expenditure not-to-exceed
$67,000,000. This amendment will increase the authorization for the agreement by an
additional $7,750,000, for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value of $74,750,000.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Ferric Chloride Agreement 150561 (Ordinance S-45892) on July 3, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Page 150
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-50280)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 153720 with Rosemount, Inc. to provide additional funding to the contract.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures included in this amendment will not exceed
$500,000.
Summary
The purpose of this Amendment is to request additional payment authority due to the
need for several expensive parts. Additional funding is required to continue supporting
the Water Services Department with purchases of non contact level meters and
replacement parts to maintain service for the remaining term of the contract.
Rosemount, Inc. is responsible for providing non contact level meters and replacement
parts on an as-needed basis for the Water Services Department.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged ending on Jan. 31, 2027.
Financial Impact
· The initial authorization for Non Contact Level Meters and Replacement Parts was
for an expenditure not-to-exceed $180,000.
· This amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an additional
$500,000, for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $680,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the Non Contact Level Meters and Replacement Parts
Contract 153720 (Ordinance S-47244) on Jan. 20, 2021.
Page 151
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Page 152
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road
Plat: 230086
Project: 22-3059
Name of Plat: TSMC Supplier Site B
Owner: DV Parcel B Owner, LLC
Engineer: James A. Brucci, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Sept. 22, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat needs to record concurrently with Abandonment 220070. The
sequence of recording is that the resolution of abandonment is recorded first, and the
plat second.
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 153
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
26th Avenue
Plat: 220076
Project: 19-2881
Name of Plat: Monterrey Park
Owner: 26th Avenue Property Trust, Saint AFG Trust
Engineer: Kent D. Miller, RLS
Request: A Two-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Sept. 22, 2023
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located south of Myrtle Avenue and west of 26th Avenue
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 154
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Southwest Corner of Roosevelt Street and 8th Avenue
Plat: 230053
Project: 17-1057
Name of Plat: 801 W Roosevelt Street & 838 & 846 N 8th Avenue
Owner: Roosevelt 8 Zero 1, LLC
Engineer: James M. Williamson, RLS
Request: A 12-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Sept. 25, 2023
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of Roosevelt Street and 8th Avenue
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 155
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
and Central Avenue
Plat: 230071
Project: 19-2147
Name of Plat: 30 N. 1st Street
Owner: Phoenix MC Properties, LLC
Engineer: David S. Klein, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Sept. 21, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of Adams Street and Central Avenue
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 156
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Resolution 22166)
Abandonment: ABND 220070
Project: 22-3059
Applicant: Jeff Hunter
Request: To abandon the excess right-of-way per exhibit on the south portion of
Pinnacle Peak and east portion of 7th Avenue.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Feb. 23, 2023
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and Plat 230086 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
675 West Pinnacle Peak Road
Council District: 1
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, section 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges
the public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the city,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this right-of-way abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 157
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Stipulation Request for Ratification of Sept. 20, 2023, Planning Hearing Officer
Action - PHO-8-23--Z-195-81-1 - Approximately 730 Feet South of the Southwest
Corner of 23rd Avenue and Parkside Lane
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Sept. 20, 2023. This ratification
requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-8-23--Z-195-81-1
Existing Zoning: A-1 DVAO
Acreage: 14.01
Applicant: Bill Lally, Tiffany & Bosco PA
Owner: RMLM LLC
Representative: Bill Lally, Tiffany & Bosco PA
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan
dated Aug. 3, 1999.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 3 regarding a landscape theme and a landscape
setback along 21st and 23rd avenues.
3. Technical corrections to Stipulations 2 and 4.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee reviewed the request on
Sept. 14, 2023, and recommended approval, with a modification, by a vote of 9-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval, with modifications
and additional stipulations.
Location
Approximately 730 feet south of the southwest corner of 23rd Avenue and Parkside
Lane
Council District: 1
Page 158
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 159
Attachment A – Stipulations – PHO-8-23—Z-195-81-1
Location: Approximately 730 feet south of the southwest corner of 23rd Avenue
and Parkside Lane
STIPULATIONS:
1. That THE new development SHALL be in general conformance with the site
plan dated STAMPED JULY 27, 2023 8/3/99, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED
BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
2. That right-of-way be dedicated, and adjacent roadways improved in a manner
consistent with adopted plans at the time of subdivision/site plan approval, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.
3. That a landscaping theme creating a strong visual identity be developed for
the entryway along 23rd Avenue (upon redevelopment of Parcel 7) consistent
with Commerce Park standards. A FIVE (5) FOOT ATTACHED SIDEWALK
AND landscaping shall be provided, within the right-of-way along the east side
of 21st Avenue, with a minimum 10’ landscape setback FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE. (which shall include minimum 15-gallon size drought
resistant shade trees spaced a maximum 20’ on center, or provided in
equivalent groupings). Along the west side of 21st Avenue, a 6’ decorative
masonry wall shall be provided, to be set back a minimum 25’ from the right-
of-way. The setback area shall be dustproofed in an appropriate manner, as
approved by THE PLANNING AND Development Services Department.
4. DEDICATE MINIMUM 50-FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE EAST SIDE OF
23RD AVENUE, ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE IMPROVEMENTS
TO 23RD AVENUE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MAJOR COLLECTOR
D CROSS SECTION AND SHALL INCLUDE:
a. A MINIMUM 5’ WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK SEPARATED BY A MINIMUM
13’ WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB
AND SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
b. A MINIMUM 25 FEET OF PAVING FROM THE MONUMENT LINE TO THE
FACE OF CURB, ADJACENT TO APN 209-03-294, CONNECTING THE
EXISTING PAVING ON 23RD AVENUE TO THE REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-
WAY IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT SITE, AS
APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
c. DEDICATE A TEMPORARY 50-FOOT RADIUS TURNAROUND EASEMENT
AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF 23RD AVENUE, INCLUDING ALL
INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS, AS APPROVED BY THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
Page 160
5. That the site be maintained in a dust and litter free condition, as approved by
4. the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.
6. That independent of the development east of 21st Avenue, Parcel 7 shall
5. comply with A-1 development standards for the existing use, or seek
appropriate variance relief.
Page 161
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
OCT. 4, 2023) - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-
27-23-1 - Southwest Corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue (Ordinance G-
7172)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
IND. PK. DVAO (Industrial Park, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) to C-3 DVAO
(General Commercial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) to allow electric vehicle
sales and repair.
Summary
Current Zoning: IND. PK. DVAO
Proposed Zoning: C-3 DVAO
Acreage: 7.91 acres
Proposal: Electric vehicle sales and repair.
Owner/Applicant: Aztec 19th Ave., LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 10,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with deleted
stipulations, by a vote of 11-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Sept. 7, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 6-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 21030 and 21040 N. 19th Ave. and 1929 W. Quail Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 162
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-27-23-1) FROM IND. PK. DVAO (INDUSTRIAL
PARK, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO C-3
DVAO (GENERAL COMMERCIAL, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT
OVERLAY DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 7.91-acre property located at the southwest
corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue in a portion of Section 24, Township 4 North,
Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from
“IND.PK. DVAO” (Industrial Park, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) to “C-3 DVAO”
(General Commercial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 163
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 square feet floor area shall provide one
bicycle parking space per 25 vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 25
spaces. Bicycle parking shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic
racks located near the front office and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
5. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb shall be replenished with the
approved landscaping and ground cover along 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Page 164
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of October,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 165
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-27-23-1
Within a portion of Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:
PARCEL 1:
LOT 31, AZTEC BUSINESS PARK, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN BOOK 310 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48 AND CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION RECORDED IN
RECORDING NO. 87-384338 THROUGH 87-384341, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
EXCEPT THE WEST 229 FEET.
PARCEL 2:
LOT 32, AZTEC BUSINESS PARK, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN BOOK 310 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48 AND CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION RECORDED IN
RECORDING NO. 87-384338 THROUGH 87-384341, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 31, 2023
Deputy City Manager
From: Joshua Bednare��
Planning and DevJ/opment Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 70 ON THE NOVEMBER 1, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA
Z-27-23-1 - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AVENUE AND QUAIL AVENUE
(ORDINANCE G-7172)
Item 70, rezoning application Z-27-23-1 is a request to rezone 7.91 acres located at the
southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue from IND.PK. DVAO (Industrial Park,
Deer Valley Airport Overlay District)) to C-3 DVAO (General Commercial, Deer Valley Airport
Overlay District) to allow electric vehicle sales and repairs.
Staff has received correspondence from the applicant requesting a continuance to address
concerns by adjacent property owners.
Staff recommends continuing this item to the December 6, 2023, City Council Formal
meeting.
Approved: �--
fiJanstephenso
Deputy City Manager
Attachment:
Exhibit A - Applicant's request for continuance
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1254. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-35-06-7(4) and the entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 200 feet east of the southeast corner of
Central Avenue and Thomas Road
Application No.: Z-35-06-7(4)
Zoning: C-1 HRI TOD-1 HGT/WVR
Owner: Haverly Midtown, LLC
Acreage: 4.04
Location
Approximately 200 feet east of the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Thomas
Road
Address: 31 E. Thomas Road
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 170
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1254.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1254, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 171
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
PL:arm:LF23-2398:11-1-2023
Page 172
Page 173
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 430 Feet East of the Southeast Corner of 32nd Street and
Paradise Lane (Ordinance G-7186)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-O/G-O HGT/WVR (Commercial Office/General Office District, Height Waiver) to R-2
(Multifamily Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-O/G-O HGT/WVR
Proposed Zoning: R-2
Acreage: 1.59
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: Brandon Nunns for Nunns Construction
Applicant/Representative: Shaine T. Alleman
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept.
11, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-
0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee, by a
vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 430 feet east of the southeast corner of 32nd Street and Paradise Lane
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 3275 E. Paradise Lane
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 174
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-40-23-2) FROM C-O/G-O HGT/WVR
(COMMERCIAL OFFICE/GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT, HEIGHT
WAIVER) TO R-2 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.59-acre property located approximately
430 feet east of the southeast corner of 32nd Street and Paradise Lane in a portion of
Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “C-O/G-O HGT/WVR” (Commercial Office/General Office
District, Height Waiver), to “R-2” (Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 175
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped August 18, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped June 20, 2023, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper,
large canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75%
shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. The primary entry/exit drive shall incorporate decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or similar alternative material, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
7. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade at maturity, as approved
by Planning and Development Department.
8. All units adjacent to Paradise Lane, as depicted on the site plan date stamped
August 18, 2023, shall have individual pedestrian entrances oriented to the
nearest public street and be connected by a direct sidewalk. These units shall
include a porch or patio to accentuate the street-facing unit entrance, as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Patio frontages shall have a minimum depth of 8 feet and a minimum
area of 64 square feet.
b. Porch frontages shall have a minimum depth of 6 feet, a minimum width
Page 176
of 50% of the unit façade, and a minimum shade coverage of 75% of the
porch area.
9. If fencing is provided adjacent to Paradise Lane, it shall be limited to full view
fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing shall be
incorporated for private rear yards adjacent to open space areas, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Bicycle infrastructure shall be provided as described below, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Bicycle parking spaces per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near improved open space areas. Artistic racks
shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of
the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
b. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained
on site within an open space area The bicycle repair station (“fix it
station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and separated
from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station
shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the
station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the
ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
c. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
12. Bicycle infrastructure shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity,
or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-
Page 177
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk along the
south side of Paradise Lane shall be constructed and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
16. A minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south side of
Paradise Lane adjacent to the development, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
17. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
18. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Deer Valley Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
19. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
Page 178
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 179
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-40-23-2
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED PHOENIX, IN THE
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Parcel 2, MINOR LAND DIVISION SURVEY, recorded in Book 1423 of Maps, page 50,
records of Maricopa County, Arizona, described as follows:
That part of The North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the
Southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, of the Gila Salt River
Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the West quarter corner of said Section 1, monumented with a brass
cap in handhole which bears North 00 degrees 18 minutes 58 seconds West, a distance
of 2628.88 feet from the Southwest corner of said Section 1, monumented with a brass
cap in handhole;
THENCE along the North line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 1, South 89
degrees 10 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 660.42 feet to the Northeast corner
of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest
quarter of said Section 1;
THENCE along the East line of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest
quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 1, South 00 degrees 19 minutes 09
seconds East, a distance of 30.01 feet to a point on a line 30.00 feet South of and
parallel with said North line, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING:
THENCE continuing along said East line, South 00 degrees 19 minutes 09 seconds
East, a distance of 298.06 feet to the Southeast corner of The North half of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 1;
THENCE along the South line of the quarter of said Section I, North 89 degrees 13
minutes 33 seconds West, a distance of 217.34 feet to e point on a line 443.00 feet East
of and parallel with the West line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 1;
THENCE along said parallel line, North 00 degrees 18 minutes 58 seconds West, a
distance of 179.49 feet to a point on a line, 148.74 feet South of and parallel with the
North line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 1;
THENCE along said parallel line, South 89 degrees 10 minutes 23 seconds East, a
distance of 18.00 feet to a point on a line 461.00 feet East of and parallel with the West
line of the Southwest quarter of Section 1;
THENCE along said parallel line, North 00 degrees 18 minutes 58 seconds West, a
distance of 118.77 feet to a point on a line 30.00 feet South of and parallel with the
North line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 1;
THENCE South 89 degrees 10 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 199.32 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 180
Page 181
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 225 Feet South and 465 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of
43rd Avenue and McDowell Road (Ordinance G-7184)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special
Permit) to allow self-service storage warehouse and underlying C-2 uses. This is a
companion case to Z-36-23-4 and should be heard first, followed by Z-36-23-4.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 2.12
Proposal: Self-service storage warehouse and underlying C-2 uses
Owner: 43rd Avenue Holdings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Matthew Sargent, RKAA Architects, Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 13,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee, by a vote of 7-
0.
Location
Approximately 225 feet south and 465 feet west of the southwest corner of 43rd
Avenue and McDowell Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 1470 and 1540 N. 43rd Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 182
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-SP-4-23-4) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
SPECIAL PERMIT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.12-acre property located approximately
225 feet south and 465 feet west of the southwest corner of 43rd Avenue and McDowell
Road in a portion of Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) to
“C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to allow self-service storage
warehouse and underlying C-2 uses.
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 183
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped June 1, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. All pedestrian pathways shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at
maturity, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Site lighting shall be provided at building entrances/exits, and in public
assembly and parking areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall
adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
6. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include access
to a standard electrical receptacle for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity,
or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Ready.
9. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 184
10. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
11. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
Page 185
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 186
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-SP-4-23-4
Within a portion of Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River
Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described as
follows:
"LOT 1 PER THE FINAL PLAT OF "RUSTY SPUR RANCH", MCR BOOK 628, PAGE
18" AND "LOT 3 PER THE FINAL PLAT OF "RUSTY SPUR RANCH", MCR BOOK
628, PAGE 18"
Page 187
Page 188
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 225 Feet South and 465 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of
43rd Avenue and McDowell Road (Ordinance G-7185)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Pending C-2 SP) (Intermediate Commercial, Pending Intermediate Commercial,
Special Permit) to C-2 SP HGT/WVR (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit,
Height Waiver) to allow self-service storage warehouse with underlying C-2
commercial uses and a height waiver. This is a companion case to Z-SP-4-23-4 and
should be heard following Z-SP-4-23-4.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 (Pending C-2 SP)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP HGT/WVR
Acreage: 2.12
Proposal: Self-service storage warehouse with underlying C-2 commercial uses and a
height waiver
Owner: 43rd Avenue Holdings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Matthew Sargent, RKAA Architects, Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 13,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee, by a vote of 7-
0.
Location
Approximately 225 feet south and 465 feet west of the southwest corner of 43rd
Avenue and McDowell Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 1470 and 1540 N. 43rd Ave.
Page 189
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 190
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-36-23-4) FROM C-2 (PENDING C-2 SP)
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, PENDING INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT) TO C-2 SP HGT/WVR
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT, HEIGHT
WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.12-acre property located approximately
225 feet south and 465 feet west of the southwest corner of 43rd Avenue and McDowell
Road in a portion of Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-2 (Pending C-2 SP)” (Intermediate
Commercial, Pending Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to “C-2 SP HGT/WVR”
(Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit, Height Waiver) to allow self-service storage
warehouse with underlying C-2 commercial uses and a height waiver.
Page 191
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped June 1, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. The maximum building height shall be 45 feet.
3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. All pedestrian pathways shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at
maturity, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. Site lighting shall be provided at building entrances/exits, and in public
assembly and parking areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall
adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
7. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include access
to a standard electrical receptacle for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
8. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity,
or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
Page 192
9. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Ready.
10. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 193
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 194
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-36-23-4
Within a portion of Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River
Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described as
follows:
"LOT 1 PER THE FINAL PLAT OF "RUSTY SPUR RANCH", MCR BOOK 628, PAGE
18" AND "LOT 3 PER THE FINAL PLAT OF "RUSTY SPUR RANCH", MCR BOOK
628, PAGE 18"
Page 195
Page 196
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-14-23-4 - Southwest Corner of 15th
Avenue and McDowell Road (Ordinance G-7183)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-5 SNSPD (Multifamily Residence District, Story Neighborhood Special Planning
District) and C-1 SNSPD (Neighborhood Retail, Story Neighborhood Special Planning
District) to C-1 SNSPD (Neighborhood Retail, Story Neighborhood Special Planning
District) to allow retail convenience store with fuel sales.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-5 SNSPD (0.49 acres) and C-1 SNSPD (1.09 acres)
Proposed Zoning: C-1 SNSPD
Acreage: 1.58
Proposal: Retail convenience store with fuel sales
Owner/Applicant: Circle K Stores, Inc.
Representative: Land Development Consultants, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 11,
2023, and recommended approval, per staff recommendation, with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 13-1-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional stipulation, by
a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 15th Avenue and McDowell Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 1501, 1503, 1505, 1509, 1513, 1517 and 1529 W. McDowell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 197
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-14-23-4) FROM R-5 SNSPD (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, STORY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICT) AND C-1 SNSPD (NEIGHBORHOOD
RETAIL, STORY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT) TO C-1 SNSPD (NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL, STORY
NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.58 acre site located at the southwest
corner of 15th Avenue and McDowell Road in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 North,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from
0.49 acres of “R-5 SNSPD” (Multifamily Residence District, Story Neighborhood Special
Planning District) and 1.09 acres of “C-1 SNSPD” (Neighborhood Retail, Story
Neighborhood Special Planning District) to “C-1 SNSPD” (Neighborhood Retail, Story
Neighborhood Special Planning District).
Page 198
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.
2. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to
the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan.
3. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include but not limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
4. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Installed.
5. Site lighting shall be provided at building entrances/exits and in the parking and
refuse areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
on-site lighting shall be shielded to prevent direct visibility of the light source
from residential properties to the south.
6. Video surveillance shall be maintained to monitor activities in and around the
store to discourage alcohol violations and unlawful activities.
7. An “authority to arrest” agreement shall be completed and maintained by the
property owner. The agreement shall be signed and delivered to the Phoenix
Police Department.
8. “No Trespassing” signs shall be posted per Phoenix City Code on the exterior
of the building in both English and Spanish.
Page 199
9. A 10-foot sidewalk easement shall be dedicated for the south side of McDowell
Road, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 40 feet of right-of-way for the west
side of 15th Avenue, adjacent to the development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department
11. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
provided along the south side of McDowell Road, planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
12. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
provided along the west side of 15th Avenue, planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. The developer shall provide a singular, 40-foot-wide P-1255-2 access point on
McDowell Road at the westernmost property line. All other existing access
points on McDowell Road shall be removed.
14. The developer shall provide a limited access P-1243-2 right in/right out
driveway on 15th Avenue.
15. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
Page 200
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
16. The developer shall dedicate right‐of‐way and construct a new bus stop pad on
southbound 15th Avenue. The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to
bus stop pad shall be spaced from McDowell Road according to City of
Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide a minimum
50% shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity.
17. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
18. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
19. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
20. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
21. Trash cans shall be provided on the east side of the building.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
Page 201
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 202
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-14-23-4
Within a portion of Section 6, Township 1 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River
Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described as
follows:
LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, BLOCK 43, OF F. Q. STORY ADDITION PLAT “E”,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48;
EXCEPT, THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 CONVEYED TO THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, AS RECORDED IN DOCKET 2474, PAGE 190, AND
EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 5 AND 6 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, AS RECORDED IN DOCKET 2463, PAGE 44.
Page 203
Page 204
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-23--Z-27-15-4 - Northeast
Corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street (Ordinance G-7187)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Commission's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on matters
heard by the Planning Commission on Oct. 5, 2023.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-23--Z-27-15-4
Existing Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.10
Applicant/Owner: Central Avenue Owner, LLC
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch and Cracchiolo, PA
Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding a $25,000 deposit into a Street Transportation
Department escrow account.
2. Deletion of Stipulation 4 regarding a temporary path along 1st Street.
3. Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval upon development
commencing within seven years.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard the request on April 25,
2023, and recommended approval, with a modification and an additional stipulation, by
a vote of 11-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard the request on Aug. 16, 2023, and
recommended approval, with modifications and an additional stipulation.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the request on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, by a vote
of 6-0.
Location
Northeast corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
Council District: 4
Page 205
Parcel Address: 4801, 4805, 4807, and 4809 N. Central Ave.; 4900 N. 1st St.; and 15
E. Mariposa St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 206
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-27-15-4 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6115.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located at the northeast
corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street in a portion of Section 20, Township 2
North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”, are hereby
modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Omninet – East PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be
consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped October 14, 2015.
2. The property owner shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3125,000 into
a Street Transportation Department escrow account at the City of Phoenix
to be utilized for traffic calming measures along 1st Street in the St. Francis
neighborhood within six (6) months of City Council approval. These funds
shall be utilized to improve existing traffic mitigation infrastructure along 1st
Street, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Any
remaining funds will be deposited in the separate account established to
comply with stipulation number 3.
Page 207
3. The property owner will deposit an additional $25,000 (for a total of
$50,000) into a Street Transportation Department escrow account at the
area bounded by Central Avenue, Camelback Road, 7th Street, and Pierson
Street at the time of construction. These funds may be contributed toward
the purchase and installation of such devices as roundabouts, speed
humps/cushions, or raised crosswalks (speed tables), limiting turning, traffic
diverters or other such traffic calming or management tools. Distribution of
funds shall be at the mutual agreement of the five member Neighborhood
Traffic Team, the residents on affected streets and the City of Phoenix
Streets Department Safety and Neighborhood Traffic Section. Owner may
apply for reimbursement of escrow funds from the Street Transportation
Department if no formal petition has been submitted within 5 years from the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4. The property owner shall construct a temporary 6-foot wide path
constructed of 3/4 inch decomposed granite 2-inches thick along their
frontage adjacent to 1st Street until the project is under construction, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The approval shall be conditioned upon development commencing within 10
4. seven (7) years of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in
accordance with Section 506.b.1 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (for
purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance
of building permits and erection of building walls on site).
5. THE GROUND FLOOR AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE
A MINIMUM 4,700 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL NOT INCLUDE LOBBY, EXERCISE,
RECEPTION AREAS, OR OTHER SIMILAR USES INTENDED FOR
EXCLUSIVE USE BY RESIDENTS. ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
SHALL FRONT PERIMETER RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
6. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING
APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6115 this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6115 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of
Page 208
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site
until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 209
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 210
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-23--Z-27-15-4
LOTS 25, 27 AND 28, SAINT FRANCIS PLACE, SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE MAP IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, IN BOOK 24 OF MAPS,
PAGE 47
Page 211
Page 212
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 200 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 9th Place and
Orangewood Avenue (Ordinance G-7182)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to R1-10 HP (Single-Family Residence
District, Historic Preservation Overlay) to allow a Historic Preservation Overlay for the
historic Walter Hubbard Sterling Residence.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-10
Proposed Zoning: R1-10 HP
Acreage: 0.75
Proposed Use: Historic Preservation Overlay for the Walter Hubbard Sterling
Residence
Owner: Humphrey Family Trust
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Historic Preservation Commission
Representative: Kevin Weight, City of Phoenix, Planning and Development
Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Sept. 5, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of
13-0.
HPC Action: The Historic Preservation Commission heard this case on Sept. 18, 2023,
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee and
Historic Preservation Commission recommendations, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 200 feet north of the northeast corner of 9th Place and Orangewood
Avenue
Page 213
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 7519 N. 9th Place
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 214
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-38-23-6) FROM R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R1-10 HP (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of 0.75 gross acre property located
approximately 200 feet north of the northeast corner of 9th Place and Orangewood
Avenue in a portion of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “R1-10” (Single-Family Residence
District) to “R1-10 HP” (Single-Family Residence District, Historic Preservation Overlay).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 215
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 216
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-38-23-6
Within a portion of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River
Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described as
follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY LOT 6, CIRCLE DRIVE VILLA,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 118 OF
MAPS, PAGE 49;
EXCEPT THE NORTH 15 FEET THEREOF.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: I 60-18-056A
COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 7519 N. 9TH PLACE, PHOENIX, AZ 85020
Page 217
Page 218
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-7 - Northeast Corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road (Resolution 22165)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
resolution if approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation
on 25.55 acres from Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre to Residential 0 to 1
dwelling units per acre and Commercial. This item is a companion case to Z-29-23-7
and must be heard first, followed by Z-29-23-7.
Summary
Application: GPA-LV-2-23-7
Current Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre (15.87 acres)
and Commercial (9.68 acres)
Acreage: 25.55
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow commercial and residential (open
space) uses
Owner: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Applicant/Representaive: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 11,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 7-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 7453 S. 43rd Ave. and 4140, 4156, 4168, 4182, 4200, and 4250 W.
Baseline Road
Page 219
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 220
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-LV-2-23-7,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-LV-2-23-7. The 25.55-acre
site located at the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road is designated
as 9.68 acres of Commercial and 15.87 acres of Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per
acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 221
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November
2023.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
-2- Resolution
Page 222
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
-3- Resolution
Page 223
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 1, 2023
Application: GPA-LV-2-23-7
Owner: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Location: Northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline
Road
Acreage: 25.55 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre
(15.87 acres) and Commercial (9.68 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment for
commercial and residential (open space) uses
Laveen Village Planning Committee September 11, 2023
Meeting Date:
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The proposed Commercial land use designation is appropriate for the site as it
is located at the intersection of two arterial streets, 43rd Avenue and Baseline
Road.
2) The proposed Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre land use designation
is consistent with the existing zoning on the site.
3) As stipulated, the companion rezoning case Z-29-23-7 requires the site to
incorporate enhanced standards for landscaping, architecture, and pedestrian
connections.
Page 224
Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-2-23-7
BACKGROUND
The subject site is 25.55 gross acres located on the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue
and Baseline Road. The site is currently vacant. The north and west portion of the site
is zoned S-1 PCD (Ranch or Farm Residence, Planned Community District) and the
remainder of the site is zoned C-O (Commercial Office). A concurrent rezoning case,
Z-29-23-7, proposes rezoning 7.53 acres of the S-1 PCD portion to C-1
(Neighborhood Retail).
This General Plan Amendment proposes a minor amendment to the General Plan
Land Use Map to allow commercial and residential (open space). The proposal
requests to modify the land use designation from Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre to 15.87 acres of Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre and 9.68 acres of
Commercial. The Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the
existing zoning of S-1 PCD used for a drainage channel and retention basin. The
Commercial designation is consistent with the existing C-O zoning on the site which is
developed with a medical clinic. The companion rezoning case, Z-29-23-7, proposes
commercial development that is consistent with the proposed Commercial land use
designation.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The subject site consists of vacant land, subdivision common area, and a medical
clinic. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling unit per acre.
NORTH
North of the subject site is single-family residential. This area is designated
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
EAST
East of the subject site is single-family residential designated Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre.
WEST
West of the subject site, across 43rd Avenue, is a single-family residential
neighborhood designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
SOUTH
South of the subject site, across Baseline Road, are two schools and a church
designated Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre and Public/Quasi-Public.
Page 225
Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-2-23-7
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE
x ENTREPRENEURS AND EMERGING ENTERPRISES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that promote the growth of
entrepreneurs or new businesses in Phoenix in appropriate locations.
This General Plan Amendment request, with the companion rezoning request,
Z-29-23-7, will support a variety of commercial and employment uses within the
Laveen Village. The development will provide a place for businesses to
operate, grow, and provide community services within the Laveen Village.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE
x Canals and trails; design principle: Provide multi-use trail connections
where appropriate.
As stipulated, in the companion rezoning case Z-29-23-7, a multi-use trail is
required along the 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road frontage. This future trail
will connect to other trails, thus adding to the regional network of trails and
improving recreational opportunities.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
x CERTAINTY & CHARACTER: DESIGN PRINCIPLES: Promote
neighborhood identity through planning that reinforces the existing
landscaping characer of the area. Each new development should
contribute to the character identified for the village; Integrate into the
development design natural features such as washes, canals, significant
topography and exisitng vegetation, which are important in providing
character to new subdivisions.
The proposed Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre designation would
further reinforce the existing S-1 PCD zoning on the site. This area is used for
a drainage channel and retention basin, within a subdivision common area, that
serves the surrounding single-family residential community.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-LV-2-23-7 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and policies of the General Plan and will result in land use designations that will
maximize the property’s opportunities for development and preservation of the
retention area. Along with the companion rezoning case, Z-29-23-7, the General Plan
Page 226
Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-2-23-7
Amendment will allow for compatible land uses that will provided commercial and
employment opportunities for the Laveen communtiy.
Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
September 1, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 227
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-2-23-7_BW ACRES: 25.55 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Laveen COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
APPLICANT: Manjula M. Vaz
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 25.55 +/- Acres)
43RD AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/acre
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
BASELINE RD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 0 to 1 du/ac ( 15.87 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 9.68 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area 43RD AVE
Residential 0 to 1 du/acre
Commercial
BASELINE RD
Page 228
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-2-23-7 ACRES: 25.55 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Laveen COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
APPLICANT: Manjula M. Vaz
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 25.55 +/- Acres)
43RD AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
BASELINE RD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 0 to 1 du/ac ( 15.87 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 9.68 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area 43RD AVE
Residential 0 to 1 du/ac
Commercial
BASELINE RD
Page 229
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-2-23-7
Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2023
Request From Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre and
Commercial
Proposal Commercial and residential (open space) uses
Location Northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation.
VPC Vote 7-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 4 (GPA-LV-2-23-7) and Item No. 5 (Z-29-23-7) were heard together.
Two members of the public registered to speak on these items.
Staff Presentation:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, presented an overview of GPA-LV-2-23-7 and Z-29-23-7.
Mrs. Sanchez Luna discussed the location of the site, the requested zoning
designation, the surrounding land uses, and the proposed General Plan Land Use
Map designation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed
development including the site plan and elevations. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the
presentation by summarizing the staff findings, providing the staff recommendation
and proposed stipulations.
Applicant Presentation:
Manjula M. Vaz, representing the applicant with Gammage and Burnham, provided an
overview of the proposed case. Ms. Vaz noted that the original proposal included a
hotel on the north side of the property; however, due to public comment the hotel was
removed. Ms. Vaz added that the proposed child daycare was also removed from the
request. Ms. Vaz summarized the site plan configuration, multi-use trail along Baseline
Road and 43rd Avenue, and displayed the proposed renderings. Ms. Vaz concluded
the presentation by summarizing the staff recommendation and public outreach.
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 230
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-2-23-7
September 11, 2023
Page 2
Questions from the committee:
Patrick Nasser-Taylor stated that he appreciated the applicant’s response to
community concerns and removed the hotel.
Mixen Rubio-Raffin asked for more information regarding the proposed bicycle
infrastructure. Ms. Vaz noted that the proposed development would include numerous
bicycle parking spaces and electric scooter infrastructure.
Rebecca Perrera asked staff if Lot 5 and 6 would return to the committee. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna confirmed that Lot 5 and 6 would have to go through the PHO process
and will return to the committee for a recommendation.
Carlos Ortega noted that he had concerns with the proposed commercial
development. Mr. Ortega added that the proposal would cause an increase in traffic
congestion, vandalism, and a flood of students from adjacent schools. Mr. Ortega
stated that he would have preferred professional uses such as offices.
Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked how bicyclist, including students, would navigate the site
safely. Ms. Rubio-Raffin wanted to ensure that the design accommodated bicyclist and
pedestrians. Ms. Vaz noted that the multi-use trials along Baseline Road and 43rd
Avenue have a landscape buffer that would separate it from vehicle traffic.
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that she supported the proposal and was in favor
of the proposed uses.
Chair Linda Abegg asked staff if the letters of opposition were submitted before or
after the hotel was removed. Mrs. Sanchez Luna confirmed that the letters were
received before the hotel was removed.
Public Comment:
Phil Hertel noted that the adjacent schools cause a lot of traffic congestion and was
opposed to right-in and right-out on Baseline Road. Mr. Hertel noted that the proposed
uses would increase traffic congestion. Mr. Hertel stated that the north property line
should be lined with two rows of trees. Ms. Vaz noted that the property was
surrounded by approximately 400 feet of open space and was not adjacent to
residential uses.
Chair Abegg noted that she favored the drive through aisles along the back of the
restaurants and not along Baseline Road.
Carlos Ortega asked if a chain link fence would be placed around the open space
area around the proposed development. Ms. Vaz stated that the commercial
development will have a six-foot tall cement wall.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 231
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-2-23-7
September 11, 2023
Page 3
Dan Penton stated that the intersection on 43rd Avenue and Baseline Avenue was
unsafe and that the commercial development could offer an opportunity to slow down
traffic. Mr. Penton requested traffic speed to be reduced next to the schools. Mr.
Penton noted that he was in favor of the electric vehicle infrastructure but would like to
see secured and shaded bicycle parking. Mr. Penton added that the proposal would
create a walkable destination, so the community no longer had to go to 35th Avenue
or 51st Avenue.
Applicant Response:
None.
Committee Discussion:
Mr. Ortega stated that there should be a stipulation that limit the type of uses for the
unknown commercial portions. Chair Abegg noted that Lot 4, 5, and 6 would have to
return to the committee for recommendation through the PHO process. Mr. Ortega
stated that the developer would have all C-1 uses available. Chair Abegg noted that
any proposal would return to the committee for recommendation. Chair Abegg added
that the original concept was multifamily or single-family residential.
Motion:
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd motioned to recommend approval of GPA-LV-2-23-7 per
the staff recommendation. Francisco Barraza second the motion.
Vote:
7-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-LV-2-23-7 per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members Barraza, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor, Perrera, Rubio-
Raffin, Hurd, and Abegg in favor and Committee Member Ortega in opposition.
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 232
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 5, 2023
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-LV-2-23-7 (Companion Case Z-29-23-7)
Location: Northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
To: Commercial/Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 25.55
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment for commercial and residential (open
space) uses.
Applicant: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Owner: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 9/11/2023 Approval. Vote: 7-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee
recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion Details: Acting Vice-Chairperson Busching made a MOTION to approve GPA-LV-2-23-7,
per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Acting Vice-Chairperson Busching
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gaynor and Mangum
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed Commercial land use designation is appropriate for the site as it is
located at the intersection of two arterial streets, 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road.
2. The proposed Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre land use designation is
consistent with the existing zoning on the site.
3. As stipulated, the companion rezoning case Z-29-23-7 requires the site to incorporate
enhanced standards for landscaping, architecture, and pedestrian connections.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz 602-602-291-2559, TTY use 7-1-1
Page 233
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 255 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 43rd Avenue and
Baseline Road (Ordinance G-7188)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-29-23-
7 and rezone the site from S-1 PCD (Ranch or Farm Residence, Planned Community
District) to C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) to allow commercial uses. This is a companion
case to GPA-LV-2-23-7 and should be heard following GPA-LV-2-23-7.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 PCD
Proposed Zoning: C-1
Acreage: 7.53
Proposed Use: Commercial uses
Owner/Applicant: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 11,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A), by a
vote of 7-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023, and
recommend approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation,
by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 255 feet east of the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 4140, 4156, 4168, 4182, and 4200 W. Baseline Road and 7453 S.
43rd Ave.
Page 234
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 235
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-29-23-7) FROM S-1 PCD (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT) TO C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 7.53-acre property located approximately
255 feet east of the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road in a portion of
Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “S-1 PCD” (Ranch or Farm Residence, Planned
Community District) to “C-1” (Neighborhood Retail).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 236
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
Overall Site
1. All perimeter street facing building elevations and the south elevation on Lot 5,
as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023, shall contain
architectural features that reflect modern agrarian architecture including, but
not limited to, detailing such as pitched roof elements, variation in window size,
overhang canopies and exterior accent materials such as metal, wood, and
stone, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Enhanced pedestrian connections and pedestrian circulation shall be provided
throughout the site as described below, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Pedestrian pathways shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width
b. The following lighting treatment shall be provided throughout the
pedestrian pathways:
i. Maximum 15-foot high lighting
ii. A minimum of one foot candle illumination maintained throughout
the pathways.
iii. Uniform lighting shall be placed along the entire pathway to avoid
bright high glare areas and low visibility dark areas.
c. One of the following elements shall be provided at each exterior
entrance/exit to the pedestrian pathways in close proximity to the multi-
use trails:
i. Bollard path light
ii. Public art
iii. Decorative directional signage
iv. Building design elements that emphasize the pathway entrance
3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of
Page 237
75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
5. All vehicular entrances to the development shall include the following elements,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Enhanced landscaping planters on both sides, excluding the north side
of the entry/exit drive along 43rd Avenue, with a minimum of 250 square
feet of landscaping.
b. A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted with a variety of at
least three plant materials, and minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk,
large canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
in equivalent groupings.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot area shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, single trunk, large canopy, drought tolerant shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25%
shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity,
or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along
Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental
detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along 43rd
Avenue and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Capable. This
stipulation is applicable to the overall development and shall not be applied on
an individual lot basis.
11. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
12. Access points on Baseline Road, adjacent to the development, shall be median
Page 238
restricted to permit right-in/right out turn movements only, as approved or
modified by the Street Transportation Department and the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk along the east
side of 43rd Avenue shall be replenished and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers
maintained to a maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
14. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk and the
landscape median along Baseline Road shall be replenished and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers
maintained to a maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
15. All existing overhead power lines 12 kv and smaller in size along the site’s
Baseline Road frontage shall be undergrounded. The developer shall
coordinate with the affected power company for design and approval.
16. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
17. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Page 239
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
19. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 4 and Lot 6 shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing
process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This
PHO review is a legislative review for conceptual building elevations only.
Specific development standards and requirements may be determined by the
PHO and the Planning and Development Department.
20. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces per building shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed
per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. A minimum of 2 of the required bicycle parking spaces per building shall
include standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Lot 5, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
22. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 5 shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process for
stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This PHO
review is a legislative review for conceptual building elevations only. Specific
development standards and requirements may be determined by the PHO and
the Planning and Development Department.
23. A minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
24. A minimum of 4 of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 240
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 241
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-29-23-7
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED PHOENIX, IN THE
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
Parcel No. 1 (APN 105-89-010P):
A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township
1 North, Range 2 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa
County, Arizona. Said parcel also being a portion of that certain property as described
in Document 1999-0389397 and depicted on the Record of Survey in Book 1207 of
Maps, page 39, Official Records of the Recorder of Maricopa County, said parcel is
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of said Section, from which the West quarter
corner bears North 00°38'22" East, a distance of 2628.36 feet;
THENCE, along the South line of said Southwest quarter, North 89°56'00" East, a
distance of 880.52 feet;
THENCE, North 00°04'00" West to a point on the North line of the South 55 feet of
said Southwest quarter, a distance of 55 feet to a rebar and 2-ince aluminum cap
stamped "RLS #25087", said point also being the Point of Beginning;
THENCE along the North line of said South 55 feet, South 89°56'00" West, a distance
of 574.96 feet to a point referenced by a 2-inch aluminum cap stamped "RLS #35113
RM 0.44 S";
THENCE, North 00°04'00" East a distance of 250.03 feet to a PK Nail tagged "RLS
#35833";
THENCE South 89°56'56" West a distance of 250.09 feet to a nail tagged "RLS
35113", said point also being a point on the East line of the West 55 feet of said
Southwest quarter;
THENCE along the East line of said West 55 feet, North 0°38'22" East, a distance of
173.46 feet to a rebar and 2-inch aluminum cap stamped "RLS #25087";
THENCE, North 89°52'17" East, a distance of 824.11 feet to a rebar and 2-inch
aluminum cap stamped "RLS #25087"; THENCE South 00°31'49" West, a distance
of 424.44 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Page 242
Page 243
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
Laveen Village Planning Committee September 11, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 2023
Request From: S-1 PCD (Ranch or Farm Residence, Planned
Community District) (7.53 acres)
Request To: C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) (7.53 acres)
Proposal: Commercial uses
Location: Approximately 255 feet east of the northeast
corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road
Owner/Applicant: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
General Plan Land Use Map per acre
Designation
Pending (GPA-LV-2-23-7): Commercial
43rd Avenue Arterial 55-foot east half street
Street Map
Classification
Major Arterial
Baseline Road 55-foot north half street
(Scenic Drive)
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes shaded bicycle parking to encourage bicycling and
transit use by leveraging its proximity to adjacent commercial developments,
neighborhoods, and the multi-use trail along 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road.
Page 244
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods
The proposal provides a reasonable level of intensity that is respectful to local conditions
by proposing commercial development that will further serve the surrounding residential
community. The proposal would include a daycare and restaurants that will further serve
the area.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, includes a multi-use trail along 43rd Avenue and Baseline
Road that will be planted with shade trees, shaded public and private walkways, and
shaded bicycle and vehicle parking areas. These improvements will create a comfortable
pedestrian environment along Baseline Road, reduce the urban heat island affect, and
make the walk to nearby destinations safer and more comfortable.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Laveen Southwest Growth Study: Background Item No. 6.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 10.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 12.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant land S-1 PCD
Drainage channel and
North S-1 PCD
retention basin
Page 245
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
South (across Baseline Road) School and church S-1
Drainage channel and
East S-1 PCD
retention basin
West Medical clinic C-O
West (across the 43rd Avenue) Single-family residential R1-8
C-1 (Neighborhood Retail)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
Minimum Building Setbacks
25 feet for 1-story, 50 feet for 2-
North (adjacent to S-1) 56 feet (Met)
story
South (adjacent to C-O) 10 feet 41 feet (Met)
Average 25 feet for structures
not exceeding two stories or 30
South (Baseline Road) 94 feet (Met)
feet, minimum 20 feet permitted
for up to 50% of structure
25 feet for 1-story, 50 feet for 2-
East (adjacent to S-1) 44 feet (Met)
story
West (adjacent to C-O) 10 feet 18 feet (Met)
Average 25 feet for structures
not exceeding two stories or 30
West (43rd Avenue) 106 feet (Met)
feet, minimum 20 feet permitted
for up to 50% of structure
Minimum Landscaped Setbacks
North (adjacent to S-1) 10 feet 5 feet (Not Met)*
South (adjacent to C-O) 10 feet 5 feet (Not Met)*
Average 25 feet for structures
not exceeding two stories or 30
South (Baseline Road) 50 feet (Met)
feet, minimum 20 feet permitted
for up to 50% of frontage
East (adjacent to S-1) 10 feet 5 feet (Not Met)*
West (adjacent to C-O) 10 feet 5 feet (Not Met)*
Average 25 feet for structures
not exceeding two stories or 30
West (43rd Avenue) 30 feet (Met)
feet, minimum 20 feet permitted
for up to 50% of frontage
Page 246
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
Maximum Lot Coverage 50% 13.4 % (Met)
Maximum Building
2 stories or 30 feet 22 – 24 feet (Met)
Height
233 spaces (as depicted on the
Minimum Parking 250 spaces
site plan)
*Variance or Site Plan modification needed
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 7.53 acres located approximately 255 feet east of the
northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road from S-1 PCD (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Planned Community District) to C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) to
allow commercial uses. The subject site is currently vacant and undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The requested C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) zoning district will support additional
commercial uses within the Laveen Village. The property to the north and east is
a drainage channel and retention basin zoned S-1 PCD (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Planned Community District). The properties to the south, across
Baseline Road, are developed with a church and school zoned S-1 (Ranch or
Farm Residence). To the west, across 43rd Avenue are single-family residences
zoned R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District). Finally, the property to the
southwest of the subject site is developed with a medical clinic zoned C-O
(Commercial Office District).
Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
Page 247
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The subject site, as well as the surrounding area to the north, east, and west are
designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The area to the south,
across Baseline Road is designated as Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre. A concurrent minor General Plan Land Use Map amendment case, GPA-
LV-2-23-7, is proposed to change the land use map designation of the subject
site and the property to the southwest to Commercial. The minor General Plan
Amendment would also change the designation to the north and east to
Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre, to be consistent with the existing land
use.
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The conceptual site plan depicts a total of six commercial lots. Four lots are
located along Baseline Road and the other two are located on the northern
portion of the site. The subject site contains two vehicle access points along
Baseline Road and another along 43rd Avenue. Pedestrian connections are
recommended throughout the site to ensure a safe pedestrian environment and
promote connectivity. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 2. The proposed site
plan does not meet the landscape setback along the north, east, and west
property lines, as a result, staff does not recommend general conformance.
Lots 1, 2, and 3 depict drive-through restaurants with access via Baseline Road.
All three lots include patios for outdoor seating areas located on the south side of
the buildings. The location of the patios would allow for easier access to the multi-
use trail located along Baseline Road.
Page 248
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
Lot 4 depicts a restaurant without a queuing lane. There are no specific
elevations proposed for Lot 4. Future development of Lot 4 will be subject to the
approved stipulations of this case and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff
recommends that site plans for any future development on Lot 4 be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process.
This is addressed in Stipulation No. 19.
Lot 5, located on the northeast portion of the subject site, does not have a specific
development plan. Although no development plan exists, any future development
is subject to the approved stipulations for this case and the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. Staff recommends that site plans and elevations for any future
development on Lot 5 be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer
through the public hearing process. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 22.
Finally, Lot 6, which is located on the northwest corner of the site, is depicted as a
child care center. The proposed development will have access via 43rd Avenue
which will serve the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods.
Furthermore, a large building setback is proposed on the east side of 43rd
Avenue to serve as a buffer to the residential uses across the street.
Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Kerpan Planning and Design
5. Elevations
The submitted elevations depict three drive-through restaurants including Burros
& Fries, Freddy’s Frozen Custard, and Starbucks. Each individual drive-through
Page 249
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
restaurant has a unique architectural style. The Burros & Fries elevations depict
modern architecture with accent materials of brick. Furthermore, the restaurant is
proposing shaded outdoor seating and numerous window sizes. Freddy’s Frozen
Custard depicts a primarily stucco structure with accent red brick. The proposed
Freddy’s Frozen Custard renderings also depicts an outdoor seating area. Finally,
the Starbucks renderings proposes a modern architectural aesthetic with accent
metal material and public art. Lots 4 and 5 do not have any conceptual elevations
or renderings. Elevations for any future development on Lot 4 and Lot 5 of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 19 and 22. Finally,
Lot 6 depicts a stucco exterior with overhangs located along building entrances.
To ensure that all proposed buildings on the subject site have a consistent
architectural theme, staff is recommending an agrarian architectural design
stipulation. This stipulation would ensure that all perimeter facing elevations
contain features of modern agrarian architecture such as pitched roofs, variation
in window size, overhang canopies, and exterior accent materials. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 1.
Burros & Fries Exterior Elevations
Source: PHNX Design
Starbucks Rendering
Source: Central Division Design Studio
Page 250
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
Freddy’s Frozen Custard Renderings
Source: Unknown
O2b Kids Rendering
Source: Level Architecture and Interiors
Page 251
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITIATIVES
6. Laveen Southwest Growth Study:
The site is located within the
boundaries of the Laveen Southwest
Growth Study, which was developed
in 1997 to analyze the existing
conditions of the Laveen Village and
provide a land use and design
planning framework to help shale the
growth that Laveen was starting to
experience, while accounting for
newly annexed farmland as well as
the future development of the South
Mountain Freeway Loop, which has
since been completed. This plan
designates the project site as
Commerce Park. Although not
consistent with the designation,
recent land use trends in the area,
such as single-family residential,
commercial, and schools, support
commercial uses.
The Laveen Southwest Growth Study
also outlines specific design policies
and standards for various types of
development that will enhance Laveen Southwest Growth Study Land Use Map
Laveen’s built environment while Source: Planning and Development Department
remaining respectful to its agricultural
heritage. The study encourages all
new development to use durable, high quality building materials and to provide
enhanced building design that will contribute to the character of the area.
Staff recommends that the proposed development include a variety of
architectural features to be consistent with a modern farmhouse design.
Furthermore, pedestrian pathways and connections are recommended
throughout the site as well as adequate lighting. Finally, staff recommends
numerous stipulations to further shade the subject development including
enhanced landscaped entry drives. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 1, 2, 4,
5, and 6.
7. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
Page 252
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. Staff is recommending stipulations designed to provide
trees and enhance shade within the development as follows:
x All pedestrian walkways shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at
maturity, or a combination of the two to provide 75 percent shade
(Stipulation No. 4);
x Primary entry and exit drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on
both sides, planted with a variety of at least three plant materials
(Stipulation No. 5);
x All uncovered surface parking shall achieve 25 percent shade at maturity
utilizing two-inch caliper size, single trunk, large canopy drought tolerant
trees (Stipulation No. 6);
x Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at
maturity, or a combination of the two to provide 75 percent shade
(Stipulation No. 7);
x Detached sidewalk along 43rd Avenue shall be planted with two-inch
caliper trees and drought tolerant shrubs (Stipulation No. 13);
x Detached sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be planted with two-inch
caliper trees and drought tolerant shrubs (Stipulation No. 14).
8. Complete Streets Guiding Principles:
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe pedestrian
environment staff is recommending enhanced pavement treatment for the on-site
pedestrian walkways that cross vehicular drive isles. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 3. Additionally, enhanced pedestrian pathways, connections and
elements shall be provided as detailed in Stipulation No. 2. Furthermore, a multi-
use trail is required along Baseline Road and 43rd Avenue. The trail will allow for
numerous forms of pedestrian transportation such as walking and bicycling. This
is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9. This development will help enhance the
immediate street frontage by providing a detached sidewalk along 43rd Avenue
and Baseline Road. In addition, any street improvements will be done to the city
Page 253
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
of Phoenix and ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 13, 14,
and 16.
9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. As stipulated, the project will provide bicycling parking spaces
throughout the development, installed per the requirements in the city’s Walkable
Urban (WU) Code. Furthermore, bicycle parking must be landscaped or covered
to achieve 75 percent shade. Finally, all lots shall include electric receptacles for
electric bicycle charging capabilities. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 20,
21, 23, and 24.
10. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10, 21,
and 24.
11. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative
Stormwater Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation,
reduce urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces.
This goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 11, which requires a minimum of two GI
Page 254
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.
12. Zero Waste PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The provision of recycling containers was not addressed
in the applicant’s submittals.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. As of the writing of this report, staff has received fourteen letters of opposition and
one letter of support for this rezoning application. The stated concerns are an
increase in traffic congestion, crime, security, and vandalism.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department has requested access points on Baseline
Road to be limited to right-in/right out turn movements only. Additionally, the
streetscape along 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road should be replenished with
shaded trees. Furthermore, all existing power lines along Baseline Road shall be
undergrounded and all street improvements must comply with City and ADA
standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
OTHER
15. The site has not been identified as being archeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 17.
16. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 18.
17. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
Page 255
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal will develop vacant property and provide a high quality commercial
development adjacent to two arterial streets.
2. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result in a
more walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The development
will provide increased shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island
effect.
3. The stipulated landscaping and planting standards are above the required
minimum standards and will make the proposal compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
Stipulations
Overall Site
1. All perimeter street facing building elevations and the south elevation on Lot 5, as
depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023, shall contain
architectural features that reflect modern agrarian architecture including, but not
limited to, detailing such as pitched roof elements, variation in window size,
overhang canopies and exterior accent materials such as metal, wood, and stone,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Enhanced pedestrian connections and pedestrian circulation shall be provided
throughout the site as described below, as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Pedestrian pathways shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width
b. The following lighting treatment shall be provided throughout the
pedestrian pathways:
i. Maximum 15-foot high lighting
ii. A minimum of one foot candle illumination maintained throughout
the pathways.
iii. Uniform lighting shall be placed along the entire pathway to avoid
bright high glare areas and low visibility dark areas.
Page 256
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
c. One of the following elements shall be provided at each exterior
entrance/exit to the pedestrian pathways in close proximity to the multi-use
trails:
i. Bollard path light
ii. Public art
iii. Decorative directional signage
iv. Building design elements that emphasize the pathway entrance
3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75%
shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
5. The primary vehicular entrance to the development shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Enhanced landscaping planters on both sides, excluding the north side of
the entry/exit drive along 43rd Avenue, with a minimum of 250 square feet
of landscaping.
b. A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted with a variety of at least
three plant materials, and minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large
canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot area shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper, single trunk, large canopy, drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping
shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade at
maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity, or
a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 257
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along
Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail
and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
9. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along 43rd
Avenue and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Capable. This
stipulation is applicable to the overall development and shall not be applied on an
individual lot basis.
11. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
12. Access points on Baseline Road, adjacent to the development, shall be median
restricted to permit right-in/right out turn movements only, as approved or
modified by the Street Transportation Department and the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk along the east
side of 43rd Avenue shall be replenished and planted to the following standards,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers maintained
to a maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of 75% live
coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
14. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk and the
landscape median along Baseline Road shall be replenished and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 258
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers maintained
to a maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of 75% live
coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment
15. All existing overhead power lines 12 kv and smaller in size along the site’s
Baseline Road frontage shall be undergrounded. The developer shall coordinate
with the affected power company for design and approval.
16. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
17. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
19. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 4 shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process for
stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This PHO review is
a legislative review for conceptual building elevations only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the PHO and the Planning
and Development Department.
20. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces per building shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per
Page 259
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
September 1, 2023
the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. A minimum of 2 of the required bicycle parking spaces per building shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Lot 5, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
22. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 5 shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process for
stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This PHO review is
a legislative review for conceptual building elevations only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the PHO and the Planning
and Development Department.
23. A minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department
24. A minimum of 4 of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department
Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
September 1, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch map
Aerial map
Conceptual site plan date stamped August 18, 2023
Conceptual elevations date stamped May 15, 2023 (5 pages)
Conceptual building renderings date stamped May 15, 2023 (6 pages)
Correspondence (17 pages)
Page 260
MINTON ST
43RD LN 42ND LN 42ND DR 41ST LN 41ST DR
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-98
R-2
PARK ST PCD *
Z-109-98
POLLACK ST
R1-8 *
Z-108-98 S-1 PCD *
43RD DR
ELLIS ST
40TH LN
E Z-109-98
AV
TH
O W ST
DARR
DONNER DR
C-O * R1-8 PCD*
Z-25-07 Z-109-98
BASELINE RD
43RD AVE
S-1
ANX 443 C-2 *
Z-152-03
PUD * S-1 S-1
C-2 SP * Z-25-22 41ST AVE
S-1 Z-152-03
R1-8 * R1-6 *
Z-152-03 BEAUTIFUL LN Z-6-05
I
BROADWAY RD
Z-29-23
SOUTHERN AVE
Miles BASELINE RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD
LAVEEN VILLAGE
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR
51ST AVE
27TH AVE
43RD AVE 35TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
43rd Ave and Baseline Development LLC
FROM:
S-1 PCD ( 7.53 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/26/2023
Z-29-23 REVISION DATES:
8/30/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
7.53 Acres QS 1-19 D-6 TO: C-1 ( 7.53 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 PCD 7 N/A
C-1 109 131
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 261
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-29-23.mxd
MINTON ST
43RD LN 42ND LN 42ND DR 41ST LN 41ST DR
R1-8 PCD *
Z-109-98
R-2
PARK ST PCD *
Z-109-98
POLLACK ST
R1-8 *
Z-108-98 S-1 PCD *
43RD DR
ELLIS ST
40TH LN
E Z-109-98
AV
TH
O W ST
DARR
DONNER DR
C-O * R1-8 PCD*
Z-25-07 Z-109-98
BASELINE RD
43RD AVE
S-1
ANX 443 C-2 *
Z-152-03
PUD * S-1 S-1
C-2 SP * Z-25-22 41ST AVE
S-1 Z-152-03
R1-8 * R1-6 *
Z-152-03 BEAUTIFUL LN Z-6-05 Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
BROADWAY RD
Z-29-23
SOUTHERN AVE
Miles BASELINE RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD
LAVEEN VILLAGE
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR
51ST AVE
27TH AVE
43RD AVE 35TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
43rd Ave and Baseline Development LLC
FROM:
S-1 PCD ( 7.53 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/26/2023
Z-29-23 REVISION DATES:
8/30/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
7.53 Acres QS 1-19 D-6 TO: C-1 ( 7.53 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 PCD 7 N/A
C-1 109 131
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 262
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-29-23.mxd
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
1459 SW 74TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32607
3 2 352-448-7788
www.leveldesign.co
A3.01 A3.01
HIGH PARAPET
22' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
19' - 0" THESE DRAWINGS ARE AND ARE FOR
T.O.T. HIGH
15' - 0"
T.O.T. MID
14' - 3 1/2" REVIEW ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE
T.O.T. LOW
13' - 7"
REPRODUCED OR PERMITTED
WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE
FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0"
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SIGNATURE/SEAL
TO THE BEST OF THE
ARCHITECT'S OR THE
ENGINEER'S KNOW-
LEDGE, THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS COMPLY
WITH THE APPLICABLE
MINIMUM BUILDING
REAR ELEVATION CODES & THE
APPLICABLE FIRE SAFETY
1/8" = 1'-0" STANDARDS AS
4 DETERMINED BY THE
LOCAL AUTHORITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE
SECTION AND CHAPTER
633, FL STATUTES.
1 1
A3.01 A3.01
HIGH PARAPET HIGH PARAPET
22' - 0" 22' - 0"
LOW PARAPET LOW PARAPET
19' - 0" 19' - 0"
T.O.T. HIGH T.O.T. HIGH
15' - 0" 15' - 0"
T.O.T. MID T.O.T. MID
14' - 3 1/2" 14' - 3 1/2"
T.O.T. LOW T.O.T. LOW
13' - 7" 13' - 7"
FINISH FLOOR FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0" 0' - 0"
Page 268 O2B KIDS
SIDE ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
2 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 3
A3.01 A3.01
HIGH PARAPET
22' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
19' - 0" REVISIONS
T.O.T. HIGH
15' - 0" NO: DATE: REF: BY:
T.O.T. MID
14' - 3 1/2"
T.O.T. LOW
13' - 7"
FINISH FLOOR
0' - 0"
FRONT FACADE GLAZING REQUIREMENTS:
TOTAL WALL = 3,136 SQ FT
GLAZING REQUIRED @ 15% = 470.5 SQ FT
GLAZING PROVIDED = 483.5 SQ FT
DRAWING STATUS:
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
FRONT ELEVATION ISSUE DATE:
04.12.2023
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
SGE STB
EXTERIOR COMPONENT COLOR LEGEND
DRAWING TITLE:
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
• FACE BRICK SIOUX CITY BRICK, COLOR: BADLANDS SMOOTH • EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR FRAMES DARK BRONZE
• 3/8" CONCAVE MORTAR JOINT GLEN-GERY BLEND, COLOR: G-209 • EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR TRIM DARK BRONZE
• 7" FIBER CEMENT SMOOTH LAP SIDING UNIVERSAL KHAKI - SW 6150 • GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS DARK BRONZE
• 5-1/2" FIBER CEMENT SMOOTH TRIM URBANE BRONZE - SW 7048 • EXTERIOR MECH WALL VENTS UNIVERSAL KHAKI - SW 6150
• EIFS 1 DRYVIT OYSTER SHELL 456 • ALUMINUM CANOPIES BENJAMIN MOORE - 1400 YOUR MAJESTY SHEET NO.
• EIFS 2 DRYVIT AMARILLO WHITE • METAL PARAPET CAP BENJAMIN MOORE - 1400 YOUR MAJESTY
A2.01
DATE/TIME STAMP:
4/12/2023 4:08:22 PM
Page 269
1 3
EXTERIOR 1 EXTERIOR 3
EXTERIOR 4
EXTERIOR 2
NO: TO THE BEST OF THE
ARCHITECT'S OR THE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SGE ENGINEER'S KNOW- 1459 SW 74TH DRIVE
LEDGE, THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS COMPLY
DRAWN BY: DATE: O2B KIDS WITH THE APPLICABLE THESE DRAWINGS ARE AND ARE FOR
ISSUE DATE:
MINIMUM BUILDING
CODES & THE
REVIEW ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32607
APPLICABLE FIRE SAFETY REPRODUCED OR PERMITTED
STANDARDS AS
4/12/2023 4:07:59 PM
SHEET NO.
DATE/TIME STAMP:
04.12.2023
REF: DETERMINED BY THE WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE 352-448-7788
DRAWING TITLE: REVISIONS
LOCAL AUTHORITY IN
STB SIGNATURE/SEAL
ACCORDANCE WITH THE
A2.00 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWING STATUS:
SECTION AND CHAPTER
633, FL STATUTES. www.leveldesign.co
BY:
CHECKED BY:
EXTERIOR VIEW
DT + PICK UP
Page 270
CENTRAL DIVISION DESIGN STUDIO STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY - CONFIDENTIAL - FOR CONCEPT ONLY - 15
EXTERIOR VIEW
DT + PICK UP
Page 271
CENTRAL DIVISION DESIGN STUDIO STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY - CONFIDENTIAL - FOR CONCEPT ONLY - 16
EXTERIOR VIEW
DT + PICK UP
Page 272
CENTRAL DIVISION DESIGN STUDIO STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY - CONFIDENTIAL - FOR CONCEPT ONLY - 17
EXTERIOR VIEW
DT + PICK UP
Page 273
CENTRAL DIVISION DESIGN STUDIO STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY - CONFIDENTIAL - FOR CONCEPT ONLY - 18
Page 274
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Debi Haffer
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 7:19 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: NEC 43rd & Baseline Rd
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Iamemailinginsupportofdevelopinganextendedstayhotel.
Page 275
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Vanessa Troglia
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: NEC W. Baseline Road and 43rd Ave Phoenix 85339 - Extended Stay Hotel
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
HiNayeli,
Asyoumayknow,agoodamountofcommunitymembersareveryconcernedaboutdevelopmentonthiscornerto
includeanextendedͲstayhotel.
Becauseofthefentanylcrisisandotherchallengesstemmingfrom51standBaseline,itwouldbeapoorlocationforthis
typeofhotel.Itcouldpotentiallyprovidespacetofolkscontributingtothechallengeswearefacing.Nottomention
thatthereare3schoolsdirectlyacrossthestreet.
Pleaseadvisehowwemayvoiceourconcerntothedevelopers.
Thankyou,
Vanessa
ͲͲ
VanessaM.Troglia
vanmartro@gmail.com
602Ͳ802Ͳ6715
Page 276
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: NO to any hotel on 43rd Ave
From:jacquelinevidrio
Sent:Thursday,June1,202310:09AM
To:CouncilDistrict7PCC
Subject:NOtoanyhotelon43rdAve
Goodmorning,
IamwritingthisemailtoexpressmydiscernmentwiththeextendedhoteldeveloperswanttobuildonBaselineand
43rdAve.Thatissurroundedbyaresidentialcommunity,1highschooland3elementaryschools.Please,ahotelofany
kindisNOTneededinthatlocation.Iandmanyconcernedcitizensseemthisasathreattoourlivelyhood.
IurgeyoutoDENY/DECLINEthis.Thereisalreadyafamilyclinicthere,maybefollowsuitwithachiropractorsoffice,
dental,anythingelse.
Kindregards,
Jacqueline
*******
Page 277
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, Planner II* Village
Long Range Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Via email: nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov
Re: LeƩer of OpposiƟon (Z-29-23)
NEC W. Baseline Road and 43rd Ave Phoenix 85339 - Extended Stay Hotel
To whom it may concern:
Because of the fentanyl crisis and other challenges stemming from the intersecƟon of 51st Avenue and
Baseline, it is evident that this parƟcular intersecƟon would be a poor locaƟon for an extended stay hotel
or similar business.
An extended stay hotel could potenƟally provide space for folks acƟvely parƟcipaƟng in the illegal acƟviƟes
our community witnesses on a daily basis.
Furthermore, there are at least 4 schools a short distance away, including 3 across the street on Baseline.
Developing this lot for an extended stay hotel would be detrimental to their safety and the posiƟve growth
of our community.
Please see a link to an Arizona State University publicaƟon regarding Disorder at Budget Motels.
hƩps://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/Įles/disorder_at_budget_motels.pdf
Page 278
Issues for long-term stay hotels typically include:
- Disturbances
- DomesƟc violence
- TheŌ
- Auto theŌ
- Public drinking
- Vandalism
- ProsƟtuƟon
- Drug dealing
- AltercaƟons
- Sexual Assault
These types of hotels also typically have limited staī that may be overwhelmed if such illegal acƟvity were
to occur. Not to menƟon that the nearest police staƟon is in Maryvale, more than 10 miles away.
As a community, I urge the City to document this leƩer of opposiƟon and prevent the development of an
extended-stay hotel at this locaƟon.
Please feel free to contact me with any quesƟons.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Troglia
Page 279
Page 280
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Bree Prinzhorn
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 11:51 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: Planned Hotel 43rd Avenue and Baseline Rd
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
Your information was passed through the Living Laveen Facebook Page as the primary contact to express
concerns about plans to build a hotel (extended stay type of hotel), at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and
Baseline Rd. I am writing this email to express my concerns with the plans for this hotel.
Currently, the Laveen area, particularly 51st Avenue and Baseline, is experiencing a tremendous problem
with homelessness, drug use, and violent crime. Over the past few years, this problem has continued to
escalate to proportions I have not seen in other suburban areas of town. On any given day, there are literally
people urinating, defecating, participating in sex acts, and using drugs in broad daylight, on the street. I
have counted between 30-50 people on this corner at any given time, every single day. The local businesses
will not do anything to remedy the issues. The police will not do anything to remedy the issues. Local
government officials will not do anything to remedy the issues. The issues get worse by the day.
In the last two days, Circle K had an attempted robbery by a man armed with a gun, a machete, and a
broomstick. Chipotle had crime scene tape around it and blood puddles on the concrete. A naked man was
rolling in the grass near Safeway. And those are just the incidents I am aware of over the last TWO DAYS,
all of which occurred in broad daylight.
An extended stay hotel, one mile down the road, will turn into a hub for drug use, violence, and dangerous
sexual activity. Additionally, there will be no way to prevent sex offenders from inhabiting this hotel,
which will be located across the street from three schools. This drug hub will pose a clear danger to the
children and teens in the area, who are working hard to get an education. Cesar Chavez High School
already has a high number of at-risk youths who attend. This hotel would put them at an even greater risk,
by creating a place to easily obtain drugs, weapons, and other illegal products.
The Laveen community is a strong community and there are still great plans to make it better.
Unfortunately, until the situation with the drug users is resolved, we cannot have things like extended stay
hotels, popping up across the street from our schools. As a parent and community member, I feel it is my
responsibility to make my concerns known. This hotel is not a regular Holiday Inn or a Marriott. What is
planned will be extremely detrimental to both our community and the safety of our children. I ask that you
step up and reconsider this poorly planned attempt at budget housing for the neighborhood junkies and plan
something that will actually benefit our community.
Additionally, if you have resources to share on how the community can combat the drugs and homelessness
that are littering our streets, I would appreciate you sharing that information.
Thanks,
Bree Prinzhorn
Sent from my iPhone
Page 281
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Anjuli Sanford
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: Proposed Hotel in Laveen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
Itwasbroughttomyfamiliesattentionit'sbeenproposedtobuildahotelacrossfromtheschoolat43rdandBaseline.
Thelastthingthatlaveenneedsrightnowisahotel.It'sisoftenthatyeshotelsprovidevisitorsbutitmaynotalways
providethebesttypeofpatronsandorsafest.Theamountoftrafficthatcouldbringandwithbeingacrossthestreet
fromaschool.
Laveenneedsmorelawenforcementpresenceneedstobecleanedupandofferedmoretoremovetransientpopulation
ͲͲͲahotelisnottheanswer.
Regardtothesafetyofthechildrenatthatschoolwithpeoplecomingandgoingfromthehotel.Idofeelpoor
placementidea.
Thankyouforlisteningtomyconcerns.
AnjuliSanford
ͲͲ
AnjuliByrd
Page 282
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Kelsie Boettcher
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Cc: Kelsie Boettcher
Subject: 43rd and Baseline Hotel
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
HelloNayeli,
IamaresidentofLaveenfor5years.I’mveryconcernedofthehotelgoingupon43rdAveandBaseline.Having
travelingandnonͲcommunitymembersstaysoclosetoschoolsisabigsafetyrisktoourkids.Baselineisalreadyso
congested,addingalargeamountofpeopleinasmallsquarefootagealsoposesasafetyriskstopedestriansand
drivers.
Phoenixneedstofocusonthecurrenttransientproblembeforeinvitingadditionalpeopletotemporarilystayinour
community.
Thankyou
KelsieBoettcher
ͲͲ
Sincerely,
KelsieBoettcher
ͲͲ
Sincerely,
KelsieBoettcher
Page 283
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Rachel Loftus
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: In Regards to Hotel Planning in Laveen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Goodafternoon...
Towhomitmayconcern.
Iamwritingtoinformyouofmyconcernofaproposedhotelbeingbuiltat43rdavenueandBaselineinLaveen.Asa
parentofateenagechildandwhohaslivedintheareaforsixteenyearsplus,Iamconcernedasthereare3schools
withinthatcorneranditisinappropriatetobuildahotelthatclosetoschools.Itisnottheplaceforahotel!Theamount
oftrafficthatalreadygoesthroughthosecornersduringtheschoolyearishorrendousandmanyaccidents.Wedonot
needtobeputtingourchildreninfurtherdangerbyaddingahotelwheretherewillbetrafficcomingandgoingata
regularrateandfurthermorehotelsdobringinothertypesofbusinessthatareinappropriateforourchildrenand
community.Thisbideaishorrificandneedstobeabolished.
Ifitisbelievedthatahotelisneededinthisarea,abetterplacetobuildahotelwouldbeatthe202and59thAvenue
rightoffthefreewayandwheretheshopsandrestaurantsarebeingbuiltsothatpeoplethatareathotelshaveaccess
towalkingtorestaurantsaswell.
Ahotelshouldneverberightinthemiddleofthecommunitywherefamiliesliveandgatherforschoolandother
activities.Theyarenotmeanttobeinsuchalocation.
Thankyouforyourtime.
RachelLoftus
Realtor
602Ͳ481Ͳ9940
SentfrommyTͲMobile5GDevice
GetOutlookforAndroid[aka.ms]
Page 284
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Reajul Lasker
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:17 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: No hotel in laveen please
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,Iamwritingthisemailaboutaconcernthatwearehearingrecentlyhereinlaveen.Asalaveenresidencewe
don’twantanyhotelnearschooloranyresidentialarea.Thatisbadforourcommunityandifwehavelowbrandhotel
suchWoodbridgeorextenderAmericainnthanitwillbringmorecrimeandprostitution.I
hopeyouwilltakeourvoiceseriouslyovercorporations.
Thankyou
SentfromYahooMailforiPhone[mail.onelink.me]
Page 285
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: eddd2@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 8:58 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: Proposed hotel in Laveen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I want to strongly express my opposition to the proposed hotel at 43rd Ave and Baseline Rd. I have
been a Laveen resident for 18 years and have watched the community grow in my time here. I don't
always agree with the changes but this time I feel the need to express my opposition. We already
have a growing problem on the corner of 51st ave and Baseline. This issue is not easily resolved and
is an ongoing conversation among the community. As our elected official I implore you stand with the
Laveen community in opposition to this proposed hotel to be build directly across the street from an
elementary school. You response is most welcome.
Tina Banks
602-237-8207
Page 286
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: NEC 43rd Ave & Baseline
From:Lorelee
Sent:Tuesday,June20,20237:38PM
To:CouncilDistrict7PCC
NayeliSanchezLuna
Subject:NEC43rdAve&Baseline
GoodEvening,
Ihopethisemailfindsyouallwell.Ithasbeenbroughttothecommunitiesattentionthatahotelisinproposalforthe
Northeastcornerof43rdAvenueandBaselineRoadinLaveen.Ihighlyadvisethatyourejectthisproposalkeepingin
mindthesafetyofourchildrenandcommunity.
AsyouallknowLaveenishavingincreasingissueswithnarcoticsales,theft,vandalism,andhomelessnessmainlyupand
downBaselineRoad.Wehavetwoschoolsacrossthestreetfromthislocationandafamilyclinicwouldbeneighboring
thissiteifbuilt.Thehotelunfortunatelywouldattractthesepeoplefurtherintoourneighborhoodsbutmost
importantlyputchildren'slivesindangerasweallknowandhaveheardfentanylisnowbeingmarketedascandyof
differentcolors.
Istronglyurgeyoutopleasereconsiderthisconstructionofthehotelandkeepnotonlyourchildreninmindbutthe
safetyofourLaveencommunity.Pleaserejectthisproposal,buildaparkorwaterpadinsteadforourcommunityto
enjoy.
Thankyouforyourtime!
Regards,
LoreleeValle
Page 287
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Delianna Molina
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 12:56 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: Hotel In Laveen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I just want to write this email to express my feelings about a Hotel in Laveen. This honestly shouldn’t even
be a thought, the amount of homeless/drug addicts we have in Laveen already is ridiculous. You cant even
shop at a store without having to see them all around passed out on the floor. I live in laveen & drive to
avondale just to avoid that mess. Our community is a disaster already, and if Laveen were to add a hotel, it
would look like 51st & McDowell.
If you really want Laveen to look so much more worse, then consider the hotel. However from myself, it is
a big HUGE NO!!
Thank you for your time.
Thank You,
Delianna Molina
Page 288
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Claudia Malone
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 8:40 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: Planning and development planning Laveen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
HelloIamwritingagainstthehotelbeingbuiltintheproximityofnot1or2but3schools.Ourcommunityisalready
beingeffectedbyhomelessnessanddrugabusethatcanbeseenalloverbaseline.TheWalgreenscirclekSafewayand
fry’ssonicallhaveariseincrime.Peoplecannotworkwithouthavingextrasecurityaroundandstillnotbeingableto
controlcrimeratesorstealingassaultorsomeonebeingshot.Kidsadultscannotsafelyridethebusorbearoundthe
busstopwithoutwitnessingthisamountofcrime.Buildingahotel/extendedstaythiscrimewillsurelymoveintothe
communityagaininproximitybyourchildrenofallagestoschoolagedtohighschool.thisaforcertain.Ourkidsin
Laveenwillbeeffectedinanegativewaytheywillprobablynotbeabletowalkaroundwithoutseeingcrimeorbeing
partofassault.Peopledon’trespectanythingdonotbringthistotheproximityoftheschoolswhereourvunurable
innocentchildrengotoschool.Theydiservebetter.Theyshouldbeabletosafelybeabletowalktoschoolandback
withoutworryingaboutrandompeoplebeingexposedtocrimeorpeopledoingdrugsopenly,committingcrime.
Hotel/extendedstayownersthisisnotwhatthechildrenofLaveenneedatallorthefamiliestoworryifthekidswillget
homesafe.Eliminatetheneedtobringcrimeintothesesacredareas.AhotelshouldNOTbeaoptioninthisproximity.
Shameondevelopersforthinkingthiswouldbeagoodideaforourcommunity.Weneedtobuildnottodestroy.This
willnotbeworthitforourcommunityinanywayshapeorform.Noamountofmoneyisworthourchildren.Ihopeyou
readthisandreflect.Thisisnotappropriateforthearea.Moneycanbemadeelsewhere.IfthiscontinuesIhopethe
hotel/extendedstaywouldbeliableforanycrimescommittedwithoutthisproximityandalsohireextrapoliceofficers
duringschooltimes.WeinLaveencannotpayforthisasitshouldbetheownersliabilitytoensuresafety.People
workinginthehotel/extendedstaywouldnotbeabletoworkcomfortably,ifwealreadycannotworksafelywithout
havingsecurityinthesurroundingareas.Hotelownerswillandshouldbeliableandifanythinghappenstothechildren
ifthisgoesforward.PullawayandbuildinadifferentareaswithnoschoolsthathavethemajorityofLaveenchildren
around.
SentfromYahooMailforiPhone[mail.onelink.me]
Page 289
Dan Penton
8216 S 42nd Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339
(602) 384-8201
dpenton85339@gmail.com
21st June, 2023
RE: GPA-LV-2-23-7 AND COMPANION CASE Z-29-23-7 (NEC 43RD AVE &
BASELINE RD)
To whom it may concern,
I am submitting this letter with the intent of opposing the approval and
development of a proposed Woodspring Suites Extended Stay Hotel at 43rd
Ave and Baseline Rd in Laveen: Potential Adverse Impacts to the
Neighborhood and Schools:
The proposed development of a Woodspring Suites Extended Stay hotel at the
intersection of 43rd Ave and Baseline Rd in Laveen raises concerns about the
potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood, particularly due to its
proximity to four schools within a quarter mile. This paper opposes the
approval and development of the hotel, highlighting the potential negative
consequences and advocating for careful consideration of the community's
well-being.
Negative Impact on the Neighborhood:
Increased TraŎc and Congestion: The addition of a hotel in the
neighborhood is likely to increase traŎc ōow, especially during peak times.
This can lead to congestion, longer commute times for residents, and potential
safety hazards around the school zones. Moreover, the presence of
extended-stay guests may result in a higher number of vehicles circulating in
the area, further exacerbating the traŎc situation.
Noise and Disruption: Hotels in general, and more speciŊcally extended stay
hotels, often attract a transient population, leading to increased noise levels
and potential disturbances for the neighboring residents. This can have a
detrimental eňect on the overall quality of life, especially for families residing
in close proximity to the proposed location. The presence of a hotel can
disrupt the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood, negatively impacting
the residents' well-being.
Safety Concerns: The proximity of the proposed hotel to four schools raises
valid safety concerns. Increased traŎc, unfamiliar faces, and potential criminal
activity associated with transient populations can compromise the safety of the
students and staň. It is crucial to prioritize the safety and security of
educational institutions, and the development of a hotel in such close
proximity poses unnecessary risks.
Page 290
Negative Inōuence on Property Values: The introduction of a Woodspring
Suites Extended Stay hotel may have a detrimental eňect on property values
in the neighborhood. The presence of an extended-stay hotel can create the
perception of instability and transience, potentially deterring prospective
homebuyers. This can lead to decreased property values, impacting the
Ŋnancial well-being of residents and potentially the long-term stability of the
community.
Conclusion:
Given the potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood and its proximity to
four schools, it is crucial to oppose the approval and development of a
Woodspring Suites Extended Stay hotel at 43rd Ave and Baseline Rd in
Laveen. It is essential to prioritize the well-being, safety, and quality of life of
the residents, especially in areas closely connected to educational institutions.
By carefully considering the potential negative consequences, alternative
development options that align with the needs and character of the
community can be explored to ensure a thriving and harmonious
neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Dan Penton
Page 291
ATTACHMENT C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report Z-29-23-7
*REVISED October 10, 2023
Laveen Village Planning Committee September 11, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 2023
Request From: S-1 PCD (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Planned Community District) (7.53
acres)
Request To: C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) (7.53 acres)
Proposal: Commercial uses
Location: Approximately 255 feet east of the
northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and
Baseline Road
Owner/Applicant: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development,
LLC
Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham,
PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
The purpose of this addendum is to revise the language for Stipulation Nos. 5 and 19
per the applicant’s request, to clarify vehicular entry standards and the process for
additional community input on development plans for Lot 6.
Staff recommends modifying Stipulation No. 5 to ensure that all vehicular entrances
are treated with landscaping.
Staff recommends a modification to Stipulation No. 19 to ensure that any future
conceptual site plan or elevations for Lot 6 are reviewed and approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process.
Staff recommends approval per the modified stipulations provided below:
Overall Site
1. All perimeter street facing building elevations and the south elevation on Lot 5,
as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023, shall contain
architectural features that reflect modern agrarian architecture including, but
Page 292
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
October 10, 2023
*Page 2 of 5
not limited to, detailing such as pitched roof elements, variation in window
size, overhang canopies and exterior accent materials such as metal, wood,
and stone, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Enhanced pedestrian connections and pedestrian circulation shall be provided
throughout the site as described below, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Pedestrian pathways shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width.
b. The following lighting treatment shall be provided throughout the
pedestrian pathways:
i. Maximum 15-foot high lighting.
ii. A minimum of one foot candle illumination maintained throughout
the pathways.
iii. Uniform lighting shall be placed along the entire pathway to avoid
bright high glare areas and low visibility dark areas.
c. One of the following elements shall be provided at each exterior
entrance/exit to the pedestrian pathways in close proximity to the multi-
use trails:
i. Bollard path light
ii. Public art
iii. Decorative directional signage
iv. Building design elements that emphasize the pathway entrance
3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of
75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
Page 293
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
October 10, 2023
*Page 3 of 5
5. The primary ALL vehicular entranceS to the development shall include the
following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department:
a. Enhanced landscaping planters on both sides, excluding the north side
of the entry/exit drive along 43rd Avenue, with a minimum of 250 square
feet of landscaping.
b. A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted with a variety of at
least three plant materials, and minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk,
large canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
in equivalent groupings.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot area shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper, single trunk, large canopy, drought tolerant shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25%
shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at
maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along
Baseline Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental
detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along 43rd
Avenue and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Capable. This
stipulation is applicable to the overall development and shall not be applied on
an individual lot basis.
11. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
12. Access points on Baseline Road, adjacent to the development, shall be
median restricted to permit right-in/right out turn movements only, as approved
Page 294
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
October 10, 2023
*Page 4 of 5
or modified by the Street Transportation Department and the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk along the
east side of 43rd Avenue shall be replenished and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers
maintained to a maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
14. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk and the
landscape median along Baseline Road shall be replenished and planted to
the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers
maintained to a maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
15. All existing overhead power lines 12 kv and smaller in size along the site’s
Baseline Road frontage shall be undergrounded. The developer shall
coordinate with the affected power company for design and approval.
16. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
17. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
Page 295
Staff Report: Z-29-23-7
October 10, 2023
*Page 5 of 5
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18,
19. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 4 AND LOT 6 shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public
hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This PHO review is a legislative review for conceptual building
elevations only. Specific development standards and requirements may be
determined by the PHO and the Planning and Development Department.
20. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces per building shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed
per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. A minimum of 2 of the required bicycle parking spaces per building shall
include standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Lot 5, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
22. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 5 shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process for
stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This PHO
review is a legislative review for conceptual building elevations only. Specific
development standards and requirements may be determined by the PHO and
the Planning and Development Department.
23. A minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
24. A minimum of 4 of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
Page 296
ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-29-23-7
Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2023
Request From S-1 PCD
Request To C-1
Proposal Commercial uses
Location Approximately 255 feet east of the northeast corner of
43rd Avenue and Baseline Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A)
VPC Vote 7-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 4 (GPA-LV-2-23-7) and Item No. 5 (Z-29-23-7) were heard together.
Two members of the public registered to speak on these items.
Staff Presentation:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, presented an overview of GPA-LV-2-23-7 and Z-29-23-7.
Mrs. Sanchez Luna discussed the location of the site, the requested zoning
designation, the surrounding land uses, and the proposed General Plan Land Use
Map designation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed
development including the site plan and elevations. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the
presentation by summarizing the staff findings, providing the staff recommendation
and proposed stipulations.
Applicant Presentation:
Manjula M. Vaz, representing the applicant with Gammage and Burnham, provided an
overview of the proposed case. Ms. Vaz noted that the original proposal included a
hotel on the north side of the property; however, due to public comment the hotel was
removed. Ms. Vaz added that the proposed child daycare was also removed from the
request. Ms. Vaz summarized the site plan configuration, multi-use trail along Baseline
Road and 43rd Avenue, and displayed the proposed renderings. Ms. Vaz concluded
the presentation by summarizing the staff recommendation and public outreach.
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 297
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-23-7
September 11, 2023
Page 2
Questions from the committee:
Patrick Nasser-Taylor stated that he appreciated the applicant’s response to
community concerns and removed the hotel.
Mixen Rubio-Raffin asked for more information regarding the proposed bicycle
infrastructure. Ms. Vaz noted that the proposed development would include numerous
bicycle parking spaces and electric scooter infrastructure.
Rebecca Perrera asked staff if Lot 5 and 6 would return to the committee. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna confirmed that Lot 5 and 6 would have to go through the PHO process
and will return to the committee for a recommendation.
Carlos Ortega noted that he had concerns with the proposed commercial
development. Mr. Ortega added that the proposal would cause an increase in traffic
congestion, vandalism, and a flood of students from adjacent schools. Mr. Ortega
stated that he would have preferred professional uses such as offices.
Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked how bicyclist, including students, would navigate the site
safely. Ms. Rubio-Raffin wanted to ensure that the design accommodated bicyclist and
pedestrians. Ms. Vaz noted that the multi-use trials along Baseline Road and 43rd
Avenue have a landscape buffer that would separate it from vehicle traffic.
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that she supported the proposal and was in favor
of the proposed uses.
Chair Linda Abegg asked staff if the letters of opposition were submitted before or
after the hotel was removed. Mrs. Sanchez Luna confirmed that the letters were
received before the hotel was removed.
Public Comment:
Phil Hertel noted that the adjacent schools cause a lot of traffic congestion and was
opposed to right-in and right-out on Baseline Road. Mr. Hertel noted that the proposed
uses would increase traffic congestion. Mr. Hertel stated that the north property line
should be lined with two rows of trees. Ms. Vaz noted that the property was
surrounded by approximately 400 feet of open space and was not adjacent to
residential uses.
Chair Abegg noted that she favored the drive through aisles along the back of the
restaurants and not along Baseline Road.
Carlos Ortega asked if a chain link fence would be placed around the open space
area around the proposed development. Ms. Vaz stated that the commercial
development will have a six-foot tall cement wall.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 298
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-23-7
September 11, 2023
Page 3
Dan Penton stated that the intersection on 43rd Avenue and Baseline Avenue was
unsafe and that the commercial development could offer an opportunity to slow down
traffic. Mr. Penton requested traffic speed to be reduced next to the schools. Mr.
Penton noted that he was in favor of the electric vehicle infrastructure but would like to
see secured and shaded bicycle parking. Mr. Penton added that the proposal would
create a walkable destination, so the community no longer had to go to 35th Avenue
or 51st Avenue.
Applicant Response:
None.
Committee Discussion:
Mr. Ortega stated that there should be a stipulation that limit the type of uses for the
unknown commercial portions. Chair Abegg noted that Lot 4, 5, and 6 would have to
return to the committee for recommendation through the PHO process. Mr. Ortega
stated that the developer would have all C-1 uses available. Chair Abegg noted that
any proposal would return to the committee for recommendation. Chair Abegg added
that the original concept was multifamily or single-family residential.
Motion:
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd motioned to recommend approval of Z-29-23-7 per the
staff recommendation (Addendum A). Francisco Barraza second the motion.
Vote:
7-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-29-23-7 per the staff recommendation
(Addendum A) passed with Committee Members Barraza, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor,
Perrera, Rubio-Raffin, Hurd, and Abegg in favor and Committee Member Ortega in
opposition.
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 299
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 5, 2023
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-29-23-7 (Companion Case GPA-LV-2-23-7)
Location: Approximately 255 feet east of the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and
Baseline Road
From: S-1 PCD
To: C-1
Acreage: 7.53
Proposal: Commercial uses
Applicant: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Owner: 43rd Ave and Baseline Development, LLC
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 9/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A). Vote: 7-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee
recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Acting Vice-Chairperson Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-29-23-7, per
the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Acting Vice-Chairperson Busching
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gaynor and Mangum
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposal will develop vacant property and provide a high quality commercial
development adjacent to two arterial streets.
2. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result in a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The development will provide
increased shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island effect.
3. The stipulated landscaping and planting standards are above the required minimum
standards and will make the proposal compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Page 300
Stipulations:
Overall Site
1. All perimeter street facing building elevations and the south elevation on Lot 5, as
depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023, shall contain architectural
features that reflect modern agrarian architecture including, but not limited to, detailing
such as pitched roof elements, variation in window size, overhang canopies and
exterior accent materials such as metal, wood, and stone, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Enhanced pedestrian connections and pedestrian circulation shall be provided
throughout the site as described below, as approved, or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. Pedestrian pathways shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width
b. The following lighting treatment shall be provided throughout the pedestrian
pathways:
i. Maximum 15-foot high lighting
ii. A minimum of one foot candle illumination maintained throughout the
pathways.
iii. Uniform lighting shall be placed along the entire pathway to avoid bright
high glare areas and low visibility dark areas.
c. One of the following elements shall be provided at each exterior entrance/exit
to the pedestrian pathways in close proximity to the multi-use trails:
i. Bollard path light
ii. Public art
iii. Decorative directional signage
iv. Building design elements that emphasize the pathway entrance
3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
4. All pedestrian walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75%
shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
5. The primary ALL vehicular entranceS to the development shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
Page 301
a. Enhanced landscaping planters on both sides, excluding the north side of the
entry/exit drive along 43rd Avenue, with a minimum of 250 square feet of
landscaping.
b. A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted with a variety of at least
three plant materials, and minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy,
drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot area shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper, single trunk, large canopy, drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be
dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking spaces shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along Baseline
Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within the
easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
9. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along 43rd Avenue
and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within the
easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Capable. This stipulation
is applicable to the overall development and shall not be applied on an individual lot
basis.
11. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater management
shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low
Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.
12. Access points on Baseline Road, adjacent to the development, shall be median
restricted to permit right-in/right out turn movements only, as approved or modified by
the Street Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department.
13. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk along the east side of
43rd Avenue shall be replenished and planted to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage at
maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
Page 302
pedestrian environment.
14. The streetscape on both sides of the existing detached sidewalk and the landscape
median along Baseline Road shall be replenished and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage at
maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment
15. All existing overhead power lines 12 kv and smaller in size along the site’s Baseline
Road frontage shall be undergrounded. The developer shall coordinate with the
affected power company for design and approval.
16. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
17. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
19. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 4 AND LOT 6 shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process
for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This PHO review is a
legislative review for conceptual building elevations only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the PHO and the Planning and
Development Department.
20. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces per building shall be provided through Inverted
U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
21. A minimum of 2 of the required bicycle parking spaces per building shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 303
Lot 5, as depicted on the Site Plan date stamped August 18, 2023
22. Conceptual site plan and elevations for Lot 5 shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) through the public hearing process for stipulation
modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This PHO review is a legislative
review for conceptual building elevations only. Specific development standards and
requirements may be determined by the PHO and the Planning and Development
Department.
23. A minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department
24. A minimum of 4 of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard electrical
receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz 602-602-291-2559, TTY use 7-1-1
Page 304
ATTACHMENT F
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
ATTACHMENT G
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: 43rd Ave zoning change - we are against this change.
From: Christine “Christy” Pacheco
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Council District 8 PCC
Subject: 43rd Ave zoning change - we are against this change.
I am a resident and our homes face Dobbins Rd., fast food corners bring large amounts of residential traffic.
Currently bike paths are beginning to be installed and walking paths, adding to our children and
grandchildren’s walking path. I fear for the safety of our local residents and our horsemen. We already
have semi trucks on our streets and Jake braking which contributes to restless nights. Adió ally there is a
fire station with excessive amounts of sirens 24 hours a day. I’m not an elderly person I’m active, involved
with our community church. And, work with my grand children our oldest is starting to drive. We own an
electrical company and we contribute to our state. We are against these restaurants we have so many and do
not believe more cars on our streets is going to contribute to our children’s well being and safety.
Fast foods and hotels belong close to industrial parks and freeways, off major streets. Not in family
agricultural neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time.
Christine and Ernest Pacheco
Sent from my iPhone
*******
Page 368
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
OCT. 4, 2023) - Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-
19-23-5 - Approximately 500 Feet South of the Southeast Corner of 75th Avenue
and Camelback Road (Ordinance G-7176)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-19-23-
5 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3A (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3A
Acreage: 6.50
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: Sheri Ranger, Ranger Homes, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case on July 12,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 10-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 500 feet south of the southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback
Road
Council District: 5
Parcel Address: 4705, 4729, 4735 and 4747 N. 75th Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 369
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-19-23-5) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-3A (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 6.50-acre site located approximately 500 feet
south of the southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback Road in a portion of
Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3A”
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 370
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The site shall be limited to no more than a total of 112 dwelling units.
2. Buildings shall be set back an average of 45 feet from the southern property
line, but in no case shall a building be closer than 15 feet and in no case shall
a building with more than 75 feet of building facade directly facing the southern
property line be any closer than 60 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. The site shall maintain common area of at least 10 percent of the gross
acreage, which may include both active and passive open space, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The on-site amenities shall include at least a pool, clubhouse, outdoor BBQ
area, tot lot, and dog run, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Architectural detailing above 30
feet may be added for no more than 25% of any building facade and in no case
shall such detailing exceed 33 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper,
drought tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where
utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
7. Resident bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling
unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. These spaces shall be located near building
entrances or common areas and may be provided through a combination of
inverted U- bicycle racks, artistic style racks, “Secure/Covered Facilities” or
“Outdoor/Covered Facilities” as defined in Appendix K or the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan.
8. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be Electric Vehicle (EV)
Capable.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
(such as striping), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 371
10. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the east side of
75th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The existing attached sidewalk along 75th Avenue shall be detached to connect
to the existing detached sidewalk. The sidewalk shall be minimum 5-feet-wide
with a minimum 9-foot-wide landscape area between back of curb and sidewalk
to match the existing sidewalk condition on the southwest portion of the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. The landscape area within the 75th Avenue right-of-way between the back of
curb and sidewalk shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single trunk,
drought tolerant shade trees placed 20 feet on center and near the sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department
on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
13. A minimum of one 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway constructed of
decorative material such as brick, pavers, or alternative material shall be
provided up to the eastern property line to access the Grand Canal Trail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
Page 372
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of October,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 373
EXHIBIT A
The Land referred to herein below in situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
PARCEL NO. 1:
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 40 FEET EAST AND 33 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 532.90 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE EAST 508.25 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 24, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE
GRAND CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID GRAND CANAL 217.31 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF
656.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF 75TH AVENUE, SAID POINT
BEING 40 FEET EAST AND 1877 FEET NORTH OF THE WEST QUARTER CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 24;
THENCE NORTH 160.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE, TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF.
PARCEL NO. 2:
THE NORTH HALF OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 70 FEET EAST AND 33 SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST;
Page 374
THENCE SOUTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 70 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 532.90 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET POINT;
THENCE EAST 452.96 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SECTION 24 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL TO A POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED IN JOINT TENANCY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS DOCKET
6900, PAGE 365;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
502.96 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL NO. 3:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT 70.00 FEET EAST AND 33.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24;
THENCE SOUTH, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 70.00 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, 692.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE EAST 656.25 FEET, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 24, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE
GRAND CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 237.68 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE GRAND CANAL;
THENCE WEST, 817.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF 75TH AVENUE,
SAID POINT BEING 70.00 FEET EAST AND 1702.00 FEET NORTH OF THE WEST
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24;
THENCE NORTH 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Page 375
PARCEL NO. 4:
THE SOUTH HALF OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 70 FEET EAST AND 33 SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 70 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 532.90 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET POINT;
THENCE EAST 452.96 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SECTION 24 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL TO A POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED IN JOINT TENANCY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS DOCKET
6900, PAGE 365;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
502.96 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 376
Page 377
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
Maryvale Village Planning Committee July 12, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 3, 2023
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence
District) (6.50 acres)
Request To: R-3A (Multifamily Residence District)
(6.50 acres)
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 500 feet south of the
southeast corner of 75th Avenue and
Camelback Road
Owner: Sheri Ranger, Ranger Homes, LLC
Applicant: Michael S. Buschbacher, Earl &
Curley, P.C.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
33-foot east half street
Major right-of-way, with a 37-
Street Map Classification 75th Avenue
Arterial foot right-of-way
easement
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.
The subject site is currently vacant and the proposed residential development, as
stipulated, is compatible with the existing neighborhood character.
Page 378
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Enhance the
compatibility of residential infill projects by carefully designing the edges of the
development to be sensitive to adjacent existing housing. Create landscape
buffers and other amenities to link new and existing development.
The proposed development is designed to be sensitive to the existing single-family
residences to the south and as stipulated, will provide enhanced buffering along the
south property line.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development, as stipulated, provides enhanced levels of trees and shade which
will reduce the urban heat island effect while also improving thermal comfort to site
users and the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 5.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 6.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 7.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 10.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant R1-6
Animal Hospital and
North C-2
vacant land
South Single-family residences R1-6
Grand Canal and radio
East R-3 SP
tower
West (across Single-family residences
R1-6, C-2
75th Avenue) and agricultural
Page 379
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
R-3A (Multifamily Residential) *variance or site plan
modification required
Requirements
Provisions on the
Standards (Planned Residential
Proposed site Plan
Development Option)
Gross Acreage - 6.50 acres
Total Number of Units 150, up to 171 with 112 (Met)
bonus
Maximum Density (dwelling 23.1, 26.4 with bonus 17.23 (Met)
units/acre)
Maximum Building Height 3 stories or 40' for 150'; 33 feet (Met)
1' in 5' increase to 48', 4-
story maximum
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% Approximately 34.3%
(Met)
Minimum Building Setbacks
North (Adjacent to property 15 feet Approximately 15 feet
line) (Met)
East (Adjacent to Grand 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Canal)
West (Adjacent to 75th 20 feet 25 feet (Met)
Avenue)
South (Adjacent to property 15 feet 17 feet (Met)
line)
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North 5 feet 10 feet (Met)
East 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
West 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
South 5 feet 10 feet (Met)
Minimum Open space 5% 17% (Met)
Minimum Amenities Two Tot lot, dog run, pool and
ramada (Met)
Minimum Parking 182 spaces 188 spaces (Met)
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 6.50 acres located approximately 500 feet south of the
southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback Road from R1-6 (Single-Family
Page 380
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
Residence District) to R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) to allow multifamily
residential.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The General Plan Land Use Map General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and
designation for the site is Development Department
Commercial. This land use category
accommodates office, retail, service
and multifamily residential at varying
levels of scales and intensity of
uses. The proposal for R-3A zoning
is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Map designation.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The subject site is currently vacant, as shown in the aerial sketch map included as an
exhibit. The subject site has been vacant since the 1970s. North of the subject site is
an animal hospital zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial). To the south are single-
family residences zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District). To the east is the
Grand Canal and across the canal is mostly vacant land with a radio tower zoned R-3
SP (Multifamily Residence District, Special Permit). To the west, across 75th Avenue,
are single-family residences zoned R1-6 and agricultural land zoned C-2.
PROPOSAL
4. The conceptual site plan attached as an exhibit proposes 112 multifamily residences
distributed throughout the site in six buildings. It also contains one single-story
clubhouse and a central amenity area with a pool and ramada. Stipulation No. 1 limits
the total number of dwelling units to 112.
Two of the proposed residential buildings front 75th Avenue and one fronts the Grand
Canal to activate the street and canal. The primary open space area is in the middle of
the site and contains a pool and ramada. There is additional open space proposed for
amenities such as a tot lot, dog run, and general open space, as required in Stipulation
Page 381
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
Nos. 3 and 4. To limit the impacts of this development to the single-family residences
to the south, additional setbacks greater than the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance standards
are proposed as listed in Stipulation No. 2.
Staff recommends enhanced planting standards along the south property line to buffer
the multifamily residences from the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood.
This recommendation is addressed in Stipulation No. 6.
The building height is limited to no more than 30 feet with architectural features up to
33 feet tall, as identified in Stipulation No. 5.
The multifamily residences will also include bicycle parking for residents, which is
addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
To enhance pedestrian connectivity and safety, Stipulation No. 9 requires pedestrian
pathways to visually contrast from the drive aisles.
Stipulation No. 13 requires a minimum of an 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway
constructed of decorative material such as brick, pavers or alternative material
connecting to the eastern property line to provide access to the Grand Canal.
STUDIES AND POLICIES
5. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This Plan
contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with a vision
of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for
residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid population growth and
housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 new housing units.
Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason why
housing costs are increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of
preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety
housing types that will address the supply shortage.
6. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Stipulation Nos. 6 and 12 require enhanced planting standards
to contribute to the urban forest and increase thermal comfort for pedestrians and
residents on site.
7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
Page 382
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles.
Stipulation No. 11 requires a detached sidewalk along 75th Avenue with landscaping
between the curb and sidewalk for comfort and pedestrian safety.
Stipulation No. 9 requires pedestrian pathways have a contrasting pavement treatment
to denote where the pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles. Stipulation No. 14
requires that any street improvements to be built to ADA and City of Phoenix standards
to promote accessible and safe street improvements. Stipulation 13 requires a
pedestrian pathway to lead the Grand Canal Trail.
8. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to guide
the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. Stipulation No. 7
requires bicycle parking on site for residents and visitors.
9. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is both a
national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a reduction in
carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and maintenance costs.
Businesses, governments and the public are signaling strong future demand for electric
vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers have declared plans for a
transition to fully electric offerings within the coming decade. This Plan contains policy
initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure
and e-mobility equity, and outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV
infrastructure needs of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to
accelerate public adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and
multifamily charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning
cases to provide EV charging infrastructure. Stipulation No. 8 provides requirements
for electric vehicle parking, charging and infrastructure.
10. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. Provisions for recycling were not addressed in the applicant's
narrative.
Page 383
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
11. At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence in support or opposition.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
12. The Street Transportation Department requested that the dedication 70-feet of right-of-
way along 75th Avenue, that the sidewalk along 75th Avenue be detached and the
existing landscaping within the right-of-way be replenished, that an 8-foot wide shaded
pedestrian pathway constructed of decorative material such as brick, pavers or
alternative material with access to the Grand Canal Trail be provided, and that all street
improvements be constructed to ADA accessibility standards and per plans approved
by the Planning and Development Department. These are addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 10 through 14.
13. The Fire Department commented that they do not anticipate any problems with this
case, and buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.
14. The City of Phoenix Water Services Department noted the property has existing water
and sewer mains that can potentially serve the site. However, the requirements and
assurances for water and sewer service are determined during the site plan application
review.
OTHER
15. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of Phoenix
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess
the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
16. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by the
rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require the
form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 16.
17. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal actions
such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and with
several General Plan principles.
Page 384
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
2. The proposal will redevelop an underutilized property and provide a high quality
multifamily residential development which will help alleviate the housing shortage in
Phoenix.
3. This proposal, as stipulated, provides enhanced setbacks and landscape areas to be
sensitive to the surrounding single-family residences
Stipulations
1. The site shall be limited to no more than a total of 112 dwelling units.
2. Buildings shall be set back an average of 45 feet from the southern property line, but
in no case shall a building be closer than 15 feet and in no case shall a building with
more than 75 feet of building facade directly facing the southern property line be any
closer than 60 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The site shall maintain common area of at least 10 percent of the gross acreage,
which may include both active and passive open space, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
4. The on-site amenities shall include at least a pool, clubhouse, outdoor BBQ area, tot
lot, and dog run, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Architectural detailing above 30 feet may
be added for no more than 25% of any building facade and in no case shall such
detailing exceed 33 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, drought
tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the
developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative
design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
7. Resident bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit,
up to a maximum of 50 spaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. These spaces shall be located near building entrances or common areas
and may be provided through a combination of inverted U- bicycle racks, artistic style
racks, “Secure/Covered Facilities” or “Outdoor/Covered Facilities” as defined in
Appendix K or the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be Electric Vehicle (EV)
Capable.
Page 385
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative
pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments (such as
striping), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the east side of 75th
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The existing attached sidewalk along 75th Avenue shall be detached to connect to the
existing detached sidewalk. The sidewalk shall be minimum 5-feet-wide with a
minimum 9-foot-wide landscape area between back of curb and sidewalk to match the
existing sidewalk condition on the southwest portion of the site, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
12. The landscape area within the 75th Avenue right-of-way between the back of curb and
sidewalk shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single trunk, drought tolerant
shade trees placed 20 feet on center and near the sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer
shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
13. A minimum of one 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway constructed of decorative
material such as brick, pavers, or alternative material shall be provided up to the
eastern property line to access the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
14. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.
Page 386
Staff Report: Z-19-23-5
June 29, 2023
Writer
Matteo Moric
June 29, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Zoning Sketch Map
Aerial Sketch Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped June 16, 2023
Conceptual Elevations date stamped April 21, 2023 (4 pages)
Page 387
CITY OF GLENDALE
CAMELBACK RD
C-O/G-O
C-2 * C-2 SP*
Z-78-89 R-3 * 73RD AVE
Z-SP-8-81
Z-46-02
Z-SP-8-81 MARIPOSA ST
PIERSON ST
75TH DR
ELM ST
75TH AVE
WOL HIG
F ST
HL
AN
D
E
AV
R1-6
75TH LN
HAZELWOOD ST
I Miles
Z-19-23
0.055 0.0275 0 0.055
MARYVALE VILLAGE
CAMELBACK RD
G
R
D
AN INDIAN SCHOOL RD
SR 1 0 1
E
107TH AVE
AV
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
99TH AVE 91ST AVE
83RD AVE 75TH AVE 67TH AVE 59TH AVE 51ST AVE 43RD AVE 35TH AVE 27TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Michael S. Buschbacher
FROM:
R1-6 ( 6.50 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
4/27/2023
Z-19-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
6.50 Acres QS 18-11 H-4 TO: R-3A ( 6.50 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 34 42
R-3A 143 171
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 388
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-19-23.mxd
CITY OF GLENDALE
CAMELBACK RD
C-O/G-O
C-2 * C-2 SP*
Z-78-89 R-3 * 73RD AVE
Z-SP-8-81
Z-46-02
Z-SP-8-81 MARIPOSA ST
PIERSON ST
75TH DR
ELM ST
75TH AVE
WOL HIG
F ST
HL
AN
D
E
AV
R1-6
75TH LN
HAZELWOOD ST
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I Miles
Z-19-23
0.055 0.0275 0 0.055
MARYVALE VILLAGE
CAMELBACK RD
G
R
D
AN INDIAN SCHOOL RD
SR 1 0 1
E
107TH AVE
AV
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
99TH AVE 91ST AVE
83RD AVE 75TH AVE 67TH AVE 59TH AVE 51ST AVE 43RD AVE 35TH AVE 27TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Michael S. Buschbacher
FROM:
R1-6 ( 6.50 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
4/27/2023
Z-19-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
6.50 Acres QS 18-11 H-4 TO: R-3A ( 6.50 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 34 42
R-3A 143 171
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 389
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-19-23.mxd
SITE DATA NO. 23-2001-00
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 144-37-404 & 144-37-001S
OWNER: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:
DEVCO, LLC TODD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 4108 4019 NORTH 44th STREET
BELLEVUE, WA. 98009 PHOENIX, AZ. 85018
CONTACT - ANDREW HUNT CONTACT - BRENT M. BIESER
(206) 473-7361 (602) 952-8280
SITE AREA:
GROSS SITE AREA +/- 6.48 AC (282,269 S.F.)
NET SITE AREA +/- 5.54 AC (241,322 S.F.)
ZONING:
COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONING R1-6
COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING R-3A (WITH PRD OPTION)
C2 ZONING Phoenix, Arizona
C2 ZONING DENSITY ALLOWED
MAX DENSITY ALLOWED +/- 23.1 DU/AC GROSS
DENSITY PROVIDED +/- 17.28 DU/AC GROSS DevCo LLC.
6' MASONRY EXISTING
COMMERCIAL
WALL ± 235.90' BUILDING HEIGHT:
± 203.43'
SETBACK 10'-0" POWER
EXISTING CO/GO ZONING BUILDING HT. - MAX. ALLOWED 3 STORIES OR 40' FOR 150; PO Box 4108
POLE
POWER 1' IN 5' INCREASE TO 48', 4
POLE Bellevue, WA 98009
15'-0" STORIES MAX.
10 10
10 (206) 473-7361 p
6' WROUGHT IRON VIEW BUILDING HT. - PROVIDED 2 STORIES
11 FENCE W/ MASONRY
O
3' SPLIT RAIL VINYL FIRE TURNING TR SETBACKS:
REFUSE 26' DRIVE TYP. 8.5' x 18' TYP. P.S. COLUMNS AT 20' O.C.
VIEW FENCE FIRE TURNING N
(ASPHALT) @ 35'-55' TYP. FRONT (75TH AVENUE) 20'
@ 35'-55' TYP.
CANAL SIDE (CANAL R.O.W) 20'
O NG
C I SIDE (NORTH & SOUTH PROPERTY LINES) 10'
12 E D N
EXISTING RIV " PED. GATE O O
'D '-0
SIDEWALK TO PAINTED 26 20 CK O 3Z UNIT MIX:
BE RELOCATED 20'-0" A L R APARTMENT TYPE & MIX
CROSSWALK 5'-3" TB F
SETBACK BLDG. TYPE 1 OPEN SE EXISTING L
TYPICAL LOADING UNIT TYPE RATIO #DU 06/15/23
(2 STORY) SPACE CANAL
5'-0" 23'-2" SERVICE A1 1BR/1BA 42.9% 48
C-2 ZONING
8'-8" 8'-0" PATH ROAD
G B1 2BR/2BA 32.1% 36
6 PAINTED TO P.L. C1 3BR/2BA 25.0% 28
SITE BLDG. TYPE 1 CROSSWALK
RA
± 220.00'
(2 STORY) N TOTAL 100.0% 112
VISIBILTY 26' DRIVE TYP. TYPICAL DOG RUN
10'-0" 8 D
TRIANGLE 25'-0" PARKING:
5'-0" C PARKING REQUIRED (8.5' x 18' TYP. P.S.)
± 65.00' EXISTING POWER 7 (ASPHALT)
POLE TO BE
A P.S. P.S.
± 50.00' 12 11 N RATIO REQ.
REMOVED 8
UNIT TYPE #DU
A L A 1BR/1BA 48 1.5 P.S./DU 72
26' DRIVE TYP. B 2BR/2BA 36 1.5 P.S./DU 54
C 3BR/2BA 28 2.0 P.S./DU 56
BLDG. TYPE 3 EXISTING
(2 STORY) (ASPHALT) POWER
TOTAL 182
5 TODD + ASSOCIATES
5 POLE
(1.62 P.S./ DU)
PHOENIX STD. 30' ENTRY DRIVE POOL CRITICAL THINKING / CREATIVE DESIGN
30'-0" DETAIL P1255-2 ASPHALT UNRESERVED PARKING REQUIRED (8.5' x 18' TYP. P.S.)
LEASING /
CLUBHOUSE P.S. P.S.
UNIT TYPE #DU RATIO REQ.
8.5' x 18' TYP. P.S.
1 BLDG. TYPE 3 A 1BR/1BA 48 0.5 P.S./DU 24
RAMADA
(2 STORY) B 2BR/2BA 36 0.5 P.S./DU 18
PAINTED
C 3BR/2BA 28 1.0 P.S./DU 28
CROSSWALK 6
TYPICAL "
TOTAL 70*
'-0
SITE 20'-0" 2 20 CK 6' WROUGHT IRON VIEW NOTE : * UNRESERVED PARKING IS INCLUDED IN THE
VISIBILTY 5'-0" 8 A
SETBACK 10'-0" TB FENCE W/ MASONRY REQUIRED PARKING CALCULATION.
TRIANGLE SE
28'-2" COLUMNS AT 20' O.C.
PARKING PROVIDED
8 BLDG. TYPE 2 REFUSE
(2 STORY) TOT LOT SURFACE PARKING 188
25'-0" 5
3 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 188
R1-6 ZONING
BLDG. TYPE 1 8.5' x 18' TYP. P.S. (1.68 P.S./ DU)
3' SPLIT RAIL VINYL PAINTED
Page 390
± 175.00' (2 STORY)
VIEW FENCE 4 CROSSWALK
TYPICAL OPEN SPACE:
ELECTRICAL POWER LINES TO 12 5'-0" MINIMUM REQUIRED 5% OF GROSS AC
BE ROUTED UNDERGROUND
0.05 x 282,269 SF = 14,113 SF
ALONG 75TH AVE. FRONTAGE 8'-3"
10 OPEN PROVIDED ±41,215 SF
EXISTING 9 137'-4"
SPACE
SIDEWALK TO FIRE TURNING ±41,215 SF / 282,269 SF = ±14.6%
TURN
BE RELOCATED 8.5' x 18' TYP. P.S. @ 35'-55' TYP. 26' DRIVE TYP.
FIRE TURNING AROUND
9 26' DRIVE TYP. (ASPHALT) 30'-0" LOT COVERAGE:
@ 35'-55' TYP. (ASPHALT) SETBACK 10'-0" MAXIMUM ALLOWED 45% OF NET AC
± 70.29' 17'-0" SETBACK 10'-0" ± 493.45' 0.45 x 241,322 SF = 108,595 SF
± 40.81' EXISTING 6' PROVIDED ±82,956 SF 04-04-23
± 267.24' MASONRY 06-30-2023
EXISTING ±82,956 SF / 241,322 SF = ±34.3%
POWER EXISTING 6' WALL 1st REZONING SUBMITTAL
POLE MASONRY
WALL
* FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADII: 35' INSIDE - 55' OUTSIDE PRELIMINARY
EXISTING FIRE RESIDENTIAL * SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AT 10' x 20' TYPICAL PER CITY OF
(06-15-23 REVISED)
HYDRANT LOCATED PHOENIX. PRICING PACKAGE
APPROXIMATELY R1-6 ZONING * SITE DESIGN BASED ON NFPA 13R SPRINKLER DESIGN
130' SOUTH OF THIS STANDARDS.
PROPERTY LINE
ASSUMPTIONS:
PARKING STANDARDS LEGEND
1 ASSUMES THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL APPROVE HOSE PULL VICINITY MAP
LENGTH OF UP TO 350 FEET FROM THE FIRE ACCESS DRIVE. PARKING STALL TYP. 8'-6" x 18'-0" FIRE HYDRANT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 11'-0" x 18'-0" MISSOURI
EXISTING POWER POLE
2 ASSUMES THAT STORM WATER WILL BE STORED IN ACCESSIBLE PARKING RATIO 5% x 112 D.U. = 6 P.S.
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. PARKING DRIVE AISLE WIDTH 26'-0" MIN. G
FIRE TURNING RADII 35' IN / 55' OUT RA
3 ASSUMES THAT ALL EXISTING EASEMENTS CAN BE MODIFIED OR LOADING AREAS (2 PROVIDED) 10' x 30' MIN. ND
ABANDONED.
75th AVE. 71st AVE.
BUILDING AREAS (GROSS)
4 SOME PROPERTY DIMENSIONS BASED ON INFORMATION FROM CAMELBACK RD.
APARTMENT BUILDINGS (6 BUILDINGS) ± 122,656 S.F.
MARICOPA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP. COMMUNITY / LEASING & FITNESS / MAINT. ± 2,953 S.F.
TOTAL BUILDING ± 125,609 S.F. C
SITE
AN
0" 20' 40' 80'
79th AVE. AL
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" SELLS DR. SDEV NO. 2300143
DSD KIVA NO. #23-581
PAPP NO. #2302223 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
ZONING CASE NO. ZA-180-17
ZONING MAP H4
QUARTER SECTION NO. Q18-11
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING ZONING 04-04-23
SITE PLAN OPT. #1 05-12-23
A1.0
4-21-23
Page 391
4-21-23
Page 392
4-21-23
Page 393
4-21-23
Page 394
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-19-23-5
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2023
Request From R1-6
Request To R-3A
Proposal Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 500 feet south of the southeast corner
of 75th Avenue and Camelback Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation.
VPC Vote 10-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Committee Member Jennifer Fostino joined the meeting during this item, bringing
quorum to 11 members.
Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented an overview of the rezoning case Z-19-23-5. Mr. Moric
discussed the location of the site, the requested zoning designation, the surrounding
land uses, and the General Plan Land Use Map designation. Mr. Moric displayed the
site plan and elevations and concluded the presentation by summarizing the staff
findings and identified the proposed stipulations.
Applicant Presentation:
Taylor Earl introduced himself as being with the law firm Earl and Curley on behalf of
the developer DevCo Development. Andrew Hunt with DevCo Residential introduced
himself and thanked the Committee and said they take great pride in engaging with
bodies like the Village Planning Committee.
Mr. Earl stated they proposed stipulations and the development company’s intent was
to hold the project forever. Mr. Earl said there usually is lots of height in DevCo’s past
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 395
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-19-23-5
projects, however, they got the message quickly meeting with community members who
were engaged through the previous project proposed at the site that the height would
not fly and decided to keep the project at 2-stories.
Mr. Earl described the context of the site and said it was next to the Grand Canal which
would create a recreational opportunity for people to activate and make it safer by
putting eyes on it. Mr. Earl noted there was commercial development to the north. Mr.
Earl described the surrounding uses and felt commercial next to people causes
concerns at times. Mr. Earl said he heard of traffic concerns on 75th Avenue and
indicated there would be less traffic than if the project were to be built as a commercial.
Mr. Earl identified how the project compared to the previous one. Mr. Earl said the
previous project was three stories with more units and the previous case was withdrawn
before it went to City Council.
Mr. Earl explained that the previous proposal was at 120 units and this proposal would
take it down to 112 units. Mr. Earl said they wanted to create a buffer to the south with a
row of trees. Mr. Earl said the previous project got paused before a City Council vote
and Mr. Earl wanted to have a conversation with the neighborhood leaders. Mr. Earl
said the previous developer pulled out because they could not make it pencil. Mr. Earl
stated with this project rent would be preserved at 60% of AMI, they’d include a
detached sidewalk and powerlines would be undergrounded.
Mr. Earl provided a rendering of the proposal and explained how the architecture was
consistent with the surrounding area and how it tied in with the southwest feel. Mr. Earl
added that in terms of amenities they were hoping to make a nice livable community.
Mr. Earl noted there would be a clubhouse, pool and ramada area, and a dog run and
path which lead to the trail. They are hoping to activate the trail. Mr. Earl stated that they
tried to rotate buildings so fewer windows would face south and added an associated
stipulation with staff. Mr. Earl felt the proposed row of Eucalyptus trees would provide a
nice buffer. Mr. Earl added that bike parking standards of Walkable Urban Code would
be adopted here and electric vehicle infrastructure would be setup.
Mr. Earl noted they proposed using a red tile roof similar to the one in the neighborhood
and would limit building height.
Mr. Earl explained some of the outreach efforts which started prior to filing the case by
getting some of the community input from some of the community leaders. Mr. Earl
added there was an open house for neighborhoods closest to the site, they completed a
project website which was not required anymore, went door to door to talk with people,
provided notices in both English and Spanish to prevent a language barrier. Mr. Earl
showed the outreach area door to door and then showed the notification boundary of
about 70 houses.
Mr. Earl emphasized maintenance was critical and DevCo plans to be the long-term
owner. Mr. Earl showed that Phoenix was one of the least affordable metro areas for
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 396
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-19-23-5
housing. He showed the prices for rent based on a funding model for what the rates
would be. He felt 112 units is one step in the right direction and talked about Phoenix
Housing Plan and goals of creating more housing. Mr. Earl said the current parcel is not
attractive and the current development team brought down the height and unit count
which the other builder was not able to do.
Chris Demarest mentioned there was a single house on the whole property, and while
he would hate to see it go, it was nice to see something new coming in on the site.
Mr. Earl replied that the property was vacant in 2017 and demolished in 2018.
Mr. Earl said 75th Avenue would be the project entrance. Mr. Earl noted concerns
included traffic on 75th Avenue, the concept of multifamily generally, and the height. Mr.
Earl said that when they went out to the community there was not harsh opposition and
several people were generally happy with what was proposed.
Questions from Committee:
Chris Demarest asked if this was the same project presented as several months ago
on the same property. Mr. Earl responded the developer and proposed project were
different, and this developer has a lot of experience developing high-quality housing
projects.
Ken Dubose asked if this was affordable housing, similar to what was proposed
previously for the site. Mr. Earl said this project is preserving restrictions on rents to
target those at 60% AMI, which is what the previous project proposed.
Mr. Al Battle asked which neighborhood leaders were contacted. Mr. Earl replied that
they spoke with community member who had previously spoken to the City Council
office, including homeowners to the south and west.
Sandra Oviedo asked if this was going to include commercial. Mr. Earl replied the
project would be residential, commercial is unlikely at the site, and the General Plan
designation is commercial which calls for multifamily residential.
Chair Derie clarified the General Plan designation was commercial and it was currently
zoned for single family homes, but the applicant could ask for any zoning district.
Chris Demarest added the last project even included a little bit behind the veterinary
office.
Jennifer Fostino said this was a good infill project, it buffers the residential, this
appears to be a good project with amenities, and asked who would install the EV
infrastructure. Mr. Earl said they would install the infrastructure and wiring for at least
10 spaces.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 397
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-19-23-5
Melissa Acevedo asked when the project would be completed. Mr. Earl estimated
once they break ground the project would be completed within 3 years.
Melissa Acevedo asked if the numbers for rents would change in 3 years. Mr. Earl said
that the rent numbers he showed were given to them but as the market value changes
prices will change with it.
Joe Barba asked if this was a “C” Class property. Mr. Earl said he was not familiar with
this type of classification.
Al Battle asked about the response from outreach. Mr. Earl said the feedback from the
first group was generally positive. Mr. Earl indicated there were 8 people total who
represented 5 households at the neighborhood meetings.
Warren Norgaard asked how much smaller the units would be from the previous
proposal. Mr. Earl said the square footage was not pinned down, and since the height is
reduced the buildings had larger footprints.
Mr. Earl added the intent is to park it under current parking requirements. He said that
could potentially consider turning parking to open space. But something need to be
thoughtful of meet code but they would have enough parking.
Sandra Oviedo asked if the project would be elderly friendly and school bus friendly.
Mr. Earl said it absolutely would be elderly friendly, if school bus needed to come on
site, the fire lane would have a turning radius for a school bus.
Sandra Oviedo asked about bike parking. Mr. Earl said they would provide bike
parking as per Walkable Urban Code requirements.
Sandra Oviedo asked about lighting on the canal trail. Mr. Earl said since they did not
own the canal they were not be able to put lights on it, but hopefully there would be
lights there. Mr. Earl added that they could not bleed light into the neighboring property.
Mr. Earl indicated they’d activate the site to the canal and it would provide visibility onto
the canal.
Chris Demarest said they’d be building the Grand Canalscape on the north side.
Sandra Oviedo asked why the company chose this property and why Maryvale.
Andrew Hunt explained they wanted to be a long-term community asset and they said
they saw a large housing need in the area.
Saundra Cole asked what the interior of the clubhouse and units would be. Mr. Earl
said the project would have LITHC funding and making it affordable but it would also be
a quality project. Mr. Earl said he believed the proposed amenities showed this.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 398
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-19-23-5
Chair Derie shared that he appreciated the eucalyptus trees along the south property
line and asked if there would be a security gate onto the canal. Mr. Earl responded they
will be providing access to the canal but were unsure if it will be for residents only or
allow neighborhood access.
Zeke Valenzuela asked if they were in agreement with all stipulations. Mr. Earl replied
affirmatively, adding that they reflect what they promised the neighbors.
Public Comments:
None.
Motion:
Ken DuBose made a motion to recommend approval of Z-19-23-5 per the staff
recommendation. Chris Demarest seconded the motion.
Vote:
10-1, Motion to recommend approval of Z-19-23-5 per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Acevedo, Barba, Battle, Cole, Demarest, DuBose,
Fostino, Norgaard, Valenzuela, and Derie in favor; Committee Member Oviedo
opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 399
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO: 12
DISTRICT NO.: 5
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-19-23-5
Location: Approximately 500 feet south of the southeast corner of 75th Avenue and
Camelback Road
From: R1-6
To: R-3A
Acreage: 6.50
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Applicant: Michael S. Buschbacher, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Owner: Sheri Ranger
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Maryvale 7/12/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice Chairman Gaynor made a MOTION to approve Z-19-23-5, per the Maryvale
Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Second: Perez
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and with
several General Plan principles.
2. The proposal will redevelop an underutilized property and provide a high quality
multifamily residential development which will help alleviate the housing shortage in
Phoenix.
3. This proposal, as stipulated, provides enhanced setbacks and landscape areas to be
sensitive to the surrounding single-family residences
Page 400
Stipulations:
1. The site shall be limited to no more than a total of 112 dwelling units.
2. Buildings shall be set back an average of 45 feet from the southern property line, but in
no case shall a building be closer than 15 feet and in no case shall a building with
more than 75 feet of building facade directly facing the southern property line be any
closer than 60 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The site shall maintain common area of at least 10 percent of the gross acreage, which
may include both active and passive open space, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
4. The on-site amenities shall include at least a pool, clubhouse, outdoor BBQ area, tot
lot, and dog run, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Architectural detailing above 30 feet may
be added for no more than 25% of any building facade and in no case shall such detailing
exceed 33 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, drought
tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the
developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative
design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
7. Resident bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, up
to a maximum of 50 spaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. These spaces shall be located near building entrances or common areas
and may be provided through a combination of inverted U- bicycle racks, artistic style
racks, “Secure/Covered Facilities” or “Outdoor/Covered Facilities” as defined in
Appendix K or the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative
pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments (such as striping),
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the east side of 75th
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The existing attached sidewalk along 75th Avenue shall be detached to connect to the
existing detached sidewalk. The sidewalk shall be minimum 5-feet-wide with a minimum
9-foot-wide landscape area between back of curb and sidewalk to match the existing
sidewalk condition on the southwest portion of the site, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
12. The landscape area within the 75th Avenue right-of-way between the back of curb and
sidewalk shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single trunk, drought tolerant
shade trees placed 20 feet on center and near the sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
Page 401
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
13. A minimum of one 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway constructed of decorative
material such as brick, pavers, or alternative material shall be provided up to the
eastern property line to access the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
14. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file
for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 402
Page 403
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 25, 2023
Deputy City Manager
From: Joshua Bednare�
Planning and D��UCX)ment Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 80 ON THE NOVEMBER 1, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA
- PUBLIC HEARING/FORMAL ACTION -REZONING APPLICATION Z-19-23-5
- APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
75TH AVENUE AND CAMELBACK ROAD (ORDINANCE G-7176)
Item 80, Rezoning Application Z-19-23-5, is a request to rezone 6.50 acres located
approximately 500 feet south of the southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback
Road, from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (6.50 acres) to R-3A (Multifamily
Residence District) (6.50 acres) to allow multifamily residential.
The Council District 5 Office has requested the item be continued to the November 15,
2023, City Council Formal Meeting to provide additional time to engage with the
community regarding their concerns.
Staff concurs with this request for continuance.
Approved �
AT..seii en.:¢
;:; ; City Manager
Page 404
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 40 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 27th Avenue and
Harvest Groves Lane (Ordinance G-7189)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) to allow
single-family residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-8
Acreage: 7.68
Proposed Use: Single-family residential
Owner: 27 Southern, LLC
Applicant: Equity Connect Holdings, LLC
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations (Attachment B).
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 14,
2023, and continued the case by a vote of 7-0. The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Sept. 11, 2023, and recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation, with modifications and additional stipulations, by a vote of 7-1
(Attachment C).
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Sept. 7, 2023, and continued
the case by a vote of 6-0. The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 5, 2023,
and recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee, with deleted
and modified stipulations, by a vote of 6-1 (Attachment D).
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
and a petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on Oct. 11, 2023 (Attachment E).
A three-quarter vote is required.
Page 405
Location
Approximately 40 feet north of the northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Harvest
Groves Lane
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 6844 S. 27th Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 406
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-77-22-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) TO R1-8 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 7.68-acre property located approximately 40
feet north of the northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Harvest Groves Lane in a portion
of Section 35, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) to “R1-8” (Single-
Family Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 407
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. All building elevations shall contain architectural features that reflect modern
farmhouse architecture including, but not limited to, detailing such as pitched
roofs, variation in window size, overhang canopies and exterior accent
materials such as board and batten siding, stone, brick veneer, and upgraded
garage doors, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. All street facing elevations shall have a minimum of 25% exterior accent
materials, not including stucco, as noted above.
b. All rear facing single-story elevations shall contain at least two of the
following architectural embellishments and detailing: textural changes,
pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location, and
overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
c. All rear facing two-story elevations shall contain at least three of the
following architectural embellishments and detailing: textural changes,
pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location, and
overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
d. All garage doors shall have decorative embellishments such as window
panels, added materials surrounding the door, or trellises, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Each individual front building plane shall have articulation or staggering a
minimum of 5 feet in depth as approved by Planning and Development
Department.
3. The homes abutting the existing homes to the east (Lots 1 and 33) shall be
limited to one story in height and with no more than three adjacent two-story
homes.
4. The project shall not exceed 33 lots.
5. The developer shall plat individual lots.
6. A minimum lot width of 50 feet shall be provided, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
7. A minimum 60-foot-wide open space buffer shall be provided along the south
perimeter of the site.
Page 408
8. The open space buffer along the south perimeter of the site shall be planted
with minimum 25% 2-inch caliper and minimum 75% 3-inch caliper large
canopy, drought tolerant trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. A minimum 22-foot garage setback for front-loaded garages, measured from
the back of sidewalk, shall be provided for each home in the development, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strip between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be provided within
the development, planted to the following standards and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant, large canopy, single-trunk
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
11. A total of 65 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of 27th
Avenue or as approved by Maricopa County.
12. Street improvements to 27th Avenue are outside of Phoenix City Limits and
shall be reviewed and approved by Maricopa County. Documentation of the
county review and approval shall be provided prior to Preliminary Site Plan
approval.
13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department and Maricopa County. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
15. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the operational
Page 409
characteristics of the existing agricultural and commercial uses adjacent to the
site.
16. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
17. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
18. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
19. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of November,
2023.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 410
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 411
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-77-22-8
THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP ONE (1)
NORTH, RANGE TWO (2) EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE NORTH 90.00 FEET OF THE EAST 485.00 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 172.00 FEET OF THE EAST 286.50 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 33.00 FEET ROAD.
Page 412
Page 413
ATTACHMENT B
*REVISED
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
Laveen Village Planning Committee June 10, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 3, 2023
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) (7.68 acres)
Request To: R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) (7.68
acres)
Proposal: Single-family residential
Location: Approximately 40 feet north of the northwest
corner of 27th Avenue and Harvest Groves
Lane
Owner: 27 Southern, LLC
Applicant: Equity Connect Holdings, LLC
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map
Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre
Designation
Street Map
27th Avenue Arterial 33-foot west half street
Classification
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal is consistent with other single-family uses in the area. The development
will incorporate open space areas and enhanced landscaping, which will mirror existing
residential properties and respect local conditions.
Page 414
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new
development or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the
surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to
prevent negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
As stipulated, the proposed development will incorporate appropriate development
standards that will mitigate impacts to adjacent residential uses. These standards will
include enhanced landscape setbacks and planting standards.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development, as stipulated, will provide a large open space buffer internal to the site.
The shade trees, as stipulated, will help encourage walking by providing a thermally
comfortable environment for pedestrians.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Laveen Southwest Growth Study: Background Item No. 6.
Housing Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 7.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 8.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 9.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 10.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant land S-1
North Ranch or farm residence S-1 and County RU-43
South Single-family residential, event venue MUA
East (across 27th
Single-family residential R1-8
Avenue)
West Single-family residential R1-8
Page 415
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
R1-8 Single-Family Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
Gross Acreage - 7.68 acres
Maximum Total Number of
34, 42 with bonus 36 (Met)
Units
Maximum Density (dwelling
4.5; 5.5 with bonus 4.7 (Met)
unit/acre)
Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 45 feet (Met)
None, 110 feet adjacent
Minimum Lot Depth 110 feet (Met)
to a freeway or arterial
40%, up to 50% including
Maximum Lot Coverage attached shade 40% (Met)
structures
2 stories and 30 feet
(3 stories not exceeding
30 feet, when approved
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 26 feet (Met)
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)
MINIMUM PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS
Property line: 15 feet
North (Rear) +20 feet (Met)
(1-story), 20 feet (2-story)
Property line: 15 feet
South (Rear) +60 feet (Met)
(1-story), 20 feet (2-story)
Street side: 15 feet (in
East (Side) addition to landscape +15 feet (Met)
setback);
Property line: 10 feet
East (Side) +15 feet (Met)
(1-story), 15 feet (2-story)
Property line: 10 feet (1-
West (Side) +20 feet (Met)
story), 20 feet (2-story)
Page 416
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
MINIMUM INTERIOR BUILDING SETBACKS
Front 10 feet 22 feet (Met)
Street side: 10 feet
Sides Not specified
Other: per building code
Rear Per building code Not specified
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Adjacent to street (27th 15 feet average, 10 feet
+275 feet (Met)
Avenue) minimum
Minimum Common Area 5% of gross site area 14.7% (Met)
*Variance or Site Plan modification needed.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 7.68 acres located approximately 40 feet north of the
northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Harvest Groves Lane from S-1 (Ranch or
Farm Residence) to R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) to allow for a single-
family residential development. The subject site is currently vacant and
undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The requested R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) will support additional
housing within the Laveen Village. The proposal is adjacent to 27th Avenue, an
existing arterial road. The properties to the north are zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence) and County RU-43 and are developed with large lot single-family
residences. East, across 27th Avenue, and west of the subject site is zoned R1-
8 (Single-Family Residence District) and are developed with single-family
residences. Finally, south of the subject site is zoned MUA (Mixed Use
Agricultural District) and developed with a single-family residence and an event
venue.
Page 417
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The subject site, as well as the surrounding area to the north and south are
designated Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. The area to the east,
across 27th Avenue, is designated Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Further east, the designation changes to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre.
The area to the west is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
The proposal is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map however, a
General Plan amendment is not required.
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
Page 418
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, proposes 36 single-family
detached homes with access from 27th Avenue. The current site plan does not
meet current street design standards required by the Phoenix City Code. As a
result, staff does not recommend stipulating general conformance to the
submitted site plan. To ensure the proposed development is compatible with the
surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a stipulation to allow a maximum
of 36 lots. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 2. The conceptual site plan
depicts a 60-foot-wide open space area located on the south portion of the
subject site. To be compatible with the large lot single-family subdivision to the
south, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 3 to ensure a large open space
buffer as shown on the site plan. Furthermore, the open space buffer shall be
planted with a minimum of 25 percent 2-inch caliper trees and 75 percent 3-inch
caliper trees. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 4. Finally, staff is
recommending Stipulation No. 5 to ensure a 22-foot-long garage setback
measured from the back of the sidewalk. This will prevent larger vehicles from
obstructing internal sidewalks and create a safer pedestrian environment.
5. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations, attached as an exhibit, depict one-story and
two-story residential buildings with a maximum height of approximately 26 feet to
the top of the roof pitch. The residential building elevations also depict pitched
shingle roofs, various window sizes, wooden fascia, and stucco exteriors. To be
compatible with the agrarian heritage of the Laveen Village, staff recommends
Stipulation No. 1 which requires that the elevation contain elements of modern
farmhouse architecture.
Page 419
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITIATIVES
6. Laveen Southwest Growth Study:
The site is located within the
boundaries of the Laveen Southwest
Growth Study, which was developed
in 1997 to analyze the existing
conditions of the Laveen Village and
provide a land use and design
planning framework to help shale the
growth that Laveen was starting to
experience, while accounting for
newly annexed farmland as well as
the future development of the South
Mountain Freeway Loop, which has
since been completed. This plan
designates the project site as 0 to 1
dwelling units per acre. Although not
consistent with the designation,
recent land use trends in the area,
including the development to the
south and single-family uses to the
east and west, point to a land use
mix that supports single-family Laveen Southwest Growth Study Land Use Map
residential. Source: Planning and Development Department
The Laveen Southwest Growth Study also outlines specific design policies and
standards for various types of development that will enhance Laveen’s built
environment while remaining respectful to its agricultural heritage. The study
encourages all new development to use durable, high quality building materials
and to provide enhanced building design that will contribute to the character of
the area. The proposal will incorporate architectural features that reflect a
modern farmhouse design (Stipulation No. 1) and a large open space area
(Stipulation No. 3) to contribute to the character of the area.
7. Housing Phoenix Plan:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
Page 420
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using underutilized land
in a more sustainable fashion.
8. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. Staff recommends the open space buffer to be planted
with a minimum of 25 percent 2-inch caliper trees and 75 percent 3-inch caliper
trees. This will not only create a buffer between the existing single-family
subdivision to the south but would promote shade and vegetation to reduce the
urban heat island effect. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 4.
9. Complete Streets Guiding Principles:
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe pedestrian
environment staff is recommending internal detached sidewalks throughout the
entire development. Furthermore, the detached sidewalks would have a
landscape curb planted with two-inch caliper trees and achieve a minimum 75
percent live coverage groundcover. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 6.
10. Zero Waste PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Recycling service is
provided by the City of Phoenix to single-family residential developments.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
*11. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received one SEVEN letter
LETTERS of opposition. The stated concerns were traffic congestion,
EMERGENCY SERVICES, SAFETY, traffic noise, and loss of the rural
character.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
12. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department commented that the proposed site plan
Page 421
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
does not meet current street design standards per the Phoenix City Code, so
general conformance of the site plan was not recommended. The Street
Transportation Department also requested that the west half of 27th Avenue be
rededicated and approved by Maricopa County. Furthermore, any street
improvements conducted along 27th Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by
Maricopa County and the approval shall be provided prior to preliminary site plan
approval. Finally, all streets shall be constructed with all required elements and
to ADA requirements as approved by Maricopa County. These are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 7 through 9.
13. Aviation Department
The City of Phoenix Aviation Department has indicated that due to the proximity
of the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, the property owner shall record documents
that disclose the existence and operations of the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to
any future owners or tenants. The documents shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
OTHER
14. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be
conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must
make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 11 through 13.
15. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
16. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm water
flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for verification
of required infrastructure in regard to lot space and density.
17. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
Page 422
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal will develop vacant property and provide a high quality single-family
residential development adjacent to an arterial street and help alleviate the
housing shortage in Phoenix.
2. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result in a
more walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The development
will provide increased shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island
effect.
3. The stipulated landscaping and planting standards are above the required
minimum standards and will make the development compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
Stipulations
1. All building elevations shall contain architectural features that reflect modern
farmhouse architecture including, but not limited to, detailing such as pitched
roofs, variation in window size, overhang canopies and exterior accent materials
such as board and batten siding, stone, brick veneer, and carriage style garage
doors, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. The project shall not exceed 36 lots.
3. A minimum 60-foot-wide open space buffer shall be provided along the south
perimeter of the site.
4. The open space buffer along the south perimeter of the site shall be planted
with minimum 25% 2-inch caliper and minimum 75% 3-inch caliper large
canopy, drought tolerant trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum 22-foot garage setback for front-loaded garages, measured from the
back of sidewalk, shall be provided for each home in the development, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strip between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be provided within
Page 423
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
the development, planted to the following standards and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant, large canopy, single-trunk
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to achieve
a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
7. A total of 65 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of 27th
Avenue or as approved by Maricopa County.
8. Street improvements to 27th Avenue are outside of Phoenix City Limits and
shall be reviewed and approved by Maricopa County. Documentation of the
county review and approval shall be provided prior to Preliminary Site Plan
approval.
9. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department and Maricopa County. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by
the City Attorney.
11. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
Page 424
Staff Report: Z-77-22-8
September 8, 2023
13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
14. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
September 8, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch map
Aerial map
Conceptual site plan date stamped March 20, 2023
Elevations date stamped October 10, 2022 (6 pages)
Correspondence (2 13 pages)
Page 425
S-1 MARICOPA S-1
Z-50-99
COUNTY
ANX 211
VINEYARD RD
S-1*
ANX 413
29TH DR
Z-53-08
26TH LN
MARICOPA COUNTY
27TH AVE
R1-8 *
Z-49-99 S-1*
Z-30-09 R1-8 *
Z-133-01
MUA *
HARVEST GROVES LN Z-19-01
Z-21-01
ANX 242
CARSON RD
R1-10 * MARICOPA
Z-16-15 COUNTY S-1
I Z-77-22 BROADWAY RD
SOUTHERN AVE
Miles BASELINE RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD
LAVEEN VILLAGE
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR
51ST AVE
27TH AVE
43RD AVE 35TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Equity Connect Holdings LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 7.68 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
4/3/2023
Z-77-22 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
7.68 Acres QS 1-22 D-7 TO: R1-8 ( 7.68 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 7 N/A
R1-8 33 42
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 426
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-77-22.mxd
S-1 MARICOPA S-1
Z-50-99
COUNTY
ANX 211
VINEYARD RD
S-1*
ANX 413
29TH DR
Z-53-08
26TH LN
MARICOPA COUNTY
27TH AVE
R1-8 *
Z-49-99 S-1*
Z-30-09 R1-8 *
Z-133-01
MUA *
HARVEST GROVES LN Z-19-01
Z-21-01
ANX 242
CARSON RD
R1-10 * MARICOPA
Z-16-15 COUNTY S-1
Maricopa County Assessor's
I Z-77-22 BROADWAY RD
SOUTHERN AVE
Miles BASELINE RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD
LAVEEN VILLAGE
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR
51ST AVE
27TH AVE
43RD AVE 35TH AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Equity Connect Holdings LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 7.68 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
4/3/2023
Z-77-22 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
7.68 Acres QS 1-22 D-7 TO: R1-8 ( 7.68 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 7 N/A
R1-8 33 42
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 427
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-77-22.mxd
RCC
DESIGN
GROUP, LLC
"...WHATEVER IT TAKES."
16815 S. DESERT FOOTHILLS PKWY
SUITE 138
phoenix, az 85048
480.598.0270
480.598.0273 FAX
STUART W.
RAYBURN
Page 428
FOR
20'
PROJECT NO. 21-105-50
DRAWING NO. 00000
DATE: 12/09/21
DRAWN BY: LJR/SWR
CHECKED BY: JSR/SWR
REVISIONS:
20' 20'
SHEET NO.
60'
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Page 433
Page 434
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Clifford Mattice
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Jennifer Hall; Clifford Mattice
Subject: Lot 4 2810 W Harvest Groves Lane Zoning Protest Against Rezoning Application Case Z-77-22 and
Public Records Request
PlanningDepartment:
PleaseinsertthiszoningprotestopposingtherezoningappliedforinCaseNo.ZͲ77Ͳ22tochangethedesignationfromSͲ
1toR1Ͳ8PRDinallpackets,attachments,writtencommunicationsprovidedtoCitystaff,committeemembers,
commissionmembersandmembersoftheCityCouncilaspartofthepublicrecord/applicationfornotonlythe
currentlyscheduledneighborhoodmeeting,butalsoanyplanningorlegislativemeetingsand/orhearingsforthis
application/case.
Weareopposedtotheapplicationforrezoning,requestthatarecommendationofdenialbeassertedbytheCity's
professionalstaff,andrequesttheapplicationbedenied.
Ourfamilyhouseisonanoversizedresidentialplotaspartof10oversizedlotsthatcontainsubstantial,preservedopen
spaceoccupiedbyhundredsofmaturepecantreeswhichinturnarehometoavarietyofspecies,includingowls,hawks,
amultitudeofbirdspeciesandcoyotes.Theproposeduse/application/rezoning("RezoningUse"),wouldallowa
substantialincreaseindensityanduseimmediatelyadjacenttoourbackyardandthebackfenceofsevenofour
neighbors'properties,andourHOAcommunityproperty.Thepreviousranchoperationsonthesubjectpropertyofthe
RezoningUsewasconsistentwiththeCity'scurrentzoningdesignation,planningdocuments,andthedensitiesanduses
ofourLaveenVillageneighborhood,includingthesurroundingsingleͲfamilyproperties,ranchproperties,bridalpathon
27thAvenueandneighborhoodschools.TheRezoningUseessentiallyproposesamultiͲfamilydensityandusethatis
completelyoutofcharacterfortheneighborhoodwhichcontainstheArizonaLutheranschoolandextremelypopular
VenueattheGroveweddingsiteestablishedin2009(whichownsthepropertynearandadjacenttothisRezoningUse).
OursmallcommunityinthepecanorchardnotonlyfitsintothehistoricranchandequestriancharacterofLaveen,but
alsoenjoysinverycloseproximity:SouthMountain,CoronaRanch,theVenueattheGrove,ArizonaLutheranAcademy,
operatinghorseranches,cottonfieldsandextensivebridalpaths.TheRezoningUseisnotconsistentwiththeuses,
densitiesorcharacterofthisagrarian,ruralvillagewithitslongͲstandingidentitydefinedbyfarming,ranchingandopen
space.
TheRezoningUseisincompatiblewiththeusesandzoningofitsadjacentandneighboringproperty,theCity'splanning
andzoningpoliciesandtheCity'scapacitytoservedenserusesinagrowingpopulation.TheRezoningUsewill
detrimentallyimpactourproperty,ourneighbors'propertyintheHarvestGrovesandsurroundingpropertiesby
creating:
DensitiesandUsescontrarytotheneighborhood'sexpectationthatthepoliciesandguidelinesoftheLaveenVillage
CharacterPlanwillcontrolfuturegrowthintheneighborhood.
DensitiesandUsesincompatiblewiththedensityanduseofadjacentandsurroundingpropertyintheneighborhood.
DensitiesandUsesthatwilldiminishthevalueanddesirabilityofadjacentandsurroundingpropertyͲresidentialand
commercial.
DensitiesandUsesthatareinconsistentwiththeplanningandzoningguidelinesfortheLaveenVillageCharacterPlan.
Increasedtrafficon27thAvenue,BaselineRoad,SouthernRoad,DobbinsRoadandcongestionontheseroadsduring
peakandoffͲpeaktimes.
DensitiesandUsesthatarecontrarytoLaveen's"smalltown"characterandrural,agriculturalheritageandcurrentuses.
IncreasednoisethatisnotagriculturalinnatureandinconsistentwiththenatureoftheLaveenVillage.
Page 435
LimitstotherangeofhousingtypesanddensitiesbyeliminatinglargelotresidentialhousingoptionsintheLaveen
Villageandeliminatingranchand/oragriculturaluses.
DetractingfromfuturedevelopmentinLaveenbycreatingdensitiesandusesthatdegrade,devalueandeliminatethe
rural,agriculturalusesandcharacterofadjacentandareaproperties.
StrainsonthelimitedandreducedresourcesoftheCityandCountyfiredepartment,policedepartmentandutilities
department.
AdditionalburdensontheavailabilityofwaterresourcesforCityresidentsandtheCityofPhoenixbeyondthecurrent
levelsplannedfortheLaveenVillage.
AlackofcurrentdevelopmentforranchandagriculturalusesintheneighborhoodandLaveenVillage.
AccordingtotheCity'sLaveenVillageCharacterPlan,thisneighborhoodis61%0Ͳ5du/acre(instarkcontrasttothe
RezoningUse);17%Parks/OpenSpaceandcontains69milesofmultiͲusepathsforhorses,hikesandcyclists.Infact
therural,agriculturalcharacteroftheneighborhoodisalsorecognizedintheCity'splanningdocumentasapproximately
5,778acresor30%ofLaveenVillageascountyjurisdiction.TheCity'splanningrulesrequireprojectstobecompatible
with:"Rural,equestrianandagriculturallifestyle";the"longhistoryasanagriculturalcommunity";"adoptedrural
developmentguidelines:;"ruralcharacter";"ruralcharacterblendedwithnewdevelopment";establishmentof
"BaselineRoadandDobbinsRoadScenicdrives";"multiͲusetrailsandcanals".TheRezoningUseiscontrarytoallof
theseelements.
TheRezoningUseisincompatiblewiththeCity'sSouthwestGrowthStudycreatedin1998whichguideslanduse
decisionswithinLaveenVillagewithobjectivesdemandingnewlandusesthat:
1."Preparedesignguidelinesanddevelopmentstandardsthatencouragedevelopmentthatisbothsympatheticand
respondstothearea'scultural,historicalandagriculturalassets."TheRezoningUseiscontrarytothearea'scultural,
historicalandagriculturalassetssuchasranchuses,horseriding,horsetraining,sheepherding,cottonfarming,and
orchardoperations.
2."Identifyneedsandmethodsforprovidingpublicservicesandfacilities."TheRezoningUsefurtherstrainsthealready
overwhelmedfireandpolicedepartmentassetsintheneighborhood.
3."Establishanappropriateandbalancedhousingmixthatalsoencouragesdevelopmentthatprotectsexisting
residentiallifestylesandnaturalresources".ThecommonareasoftheGrovesAssociationpropertywhichcontains
multipleacresofamatureandproducingpecantreeshasalreadysufferedtheencroachmentofhighdensityhousing
alongitssouthernfencelinebyCityorCountyapprovalsanddevelopmentofhigh,densityhousingwithoutbufferingto
ourproperty.ThathousingdevelopmentreceivesthebenefitoftheGroves'orchardwithouthavingtopayforits
maintenance.OurGrovescommunityalreadyessentiallyhasanotheradjacentsubdivisionontheentiresouthfenceline
utilizingourpropertyasopenspacefortheirbackyards.TheRezoningUsewouldresultinyetanotheradjacenthousing
developmentonthenorthfencelineencroachingcloselytoourpropertywithincompatibleusesanddensitiesdevaluing
ourpropertyandrenderingitlessdesirabletolivein.TheRezoningUseisalsoincompatiblewiththeagriculturaland
singlefamilyresidentialuseofourproperty.
TheRezoningUseisfurtherinconsistentwiththeCity'sexpresseddevelopmentobjectives:toprotectresidentialareas
fromconcentrationsofincompatiblelandusesthatcouldchangetheircharacteranddestabilizelandvalues;promote
sitedevelopmentandlandusewhichprotectsthenaturalenvironmentbypreservingvegetationandsurfacewater,
minimizesdisturbancestotheexistingterrain;requiringhousingdevelopmentthatpromoteslargelotsize;anddesign
thatmitigatestrafficimpactsandnoiseimpacts.TheRezoningUsealsofailsto"promoteneighborhoodidentitythrough
planningthatreinforcestheexistinglandscapingandcharacterofthearea."Smallhouseswithshareddrivewayspacked
intotinylotsservedbyabottleͲneckedentrywayonto27thAvenueisnotrepresentativeofthecharacterofour
neighborhood.
Andfinally,theRezoningUsefailstosatisfytheCity'sobjectivethat"Eachnewdevelopmentshouldcontributetothe
characteridentifiedforthevillage."
Page 436
Becausetheproposedrezoningwouldcausemultipledetrimentalimpacts(basedonuses,densities,design)toour
property,otheradjacentproperty,theneighborhoodandtheLaveenVillage,weopposeandprotesttheapplicationin
itsentiretyandrequestthattheapplicationbedeniedatallstagesofreview.Wefurtherrespectfullyrequestthatthe
City'sofficials,includingtheplanningprofessionals,utilityprofessionals,fireandpoliceprofessionalsallrecommend
denialforthisapplication.
Additionally,werequestacopyofallrecords,includingbutnotlimitedtotheapplicationandemailcorrespondence
relatedtothiscase,includingreports,memorandaandcommunicationsby,fromorthroughallCitystaffandelected,
eappointedofficials.
CliffandMelissaMattice
2810WestHarvestGrovesLane
Page 437
From: Edward Olaya
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Jennifer Hall
Subject: Zoning Protest Against Rezoning Application Case Z-77-22
Date: Saturday, November 19, 2022 1:28:06 AM
Planning Department:
Please insert this zoning protest opposing the rezoning applied for in Case No. Z-77-
22 (6844 S. 27th Ave) to change the designation from S-1 to R1-8 PRD in all packets,
attachments, written communications provided to City staff, committee members,
commission members and members of the City Council as part of the public record/
application for any planning or legislative meetings and/or hearings for this
application/case.
I own the following residential and commercial property adjacent and near the
property requesting the rezoning:
1) 6848 South 27th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85041 (Residential)
2) 7010 South 27th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85041 (Commercial)
3) 7032 South 27th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85041 (Residential)
4) 7110 South 27th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85041 (Vacant Land)
Below are the reasons for opposition.
Density
The “townhome” layout of 40 homes on 7.8 acres is out of reason for the surrounding
area. Many homes in the area are larger than the proposed lot sizes (2,600 sq ft) of
this community. The parking of any additional vehicles in the community is going to
spill over on the only road in the community causing a danger to any need of City of
Phoenix emergency vehicles entering the community. I have personally seen the
decline in brand new neighborhoods due to similar layouts. In these highly dense
communities the road is constantly filled with additional vehicles parked in streets
because the lack of driveways/garages aren’t big enough to withstand multiple
vehicles from the home and their visitors.
Noise
There is a 250-foot stretch of roadway that is sandwiched between two residential
homes that will need to be driven through before even getting into the proposed
community of homes. According to the traffic study, it is estimated that there will be
72 vehicles entering and exiting that 250-foot stretch of road each day. This 250-foot
stretch covers the complete length of my home that sits on 1 acre. All the bedrooms
of my home are on the side adjacent to this road, therefore I will have constant traffic
surrounding my home from the north (community road) and the east (27th
Avenue). This would be a large increase in traffic noise.
Page 438
Also, there will be an increase of general noise coming from 40 homes being packed
in a small area.
Character of Area
The Rezoning Use is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding irrigated, rural
area with its long-standing identity defined by open space and farming/ranching. The
proposed rezoning and layout will devalue the adjacent Harvest Groves community
by putting “townhome” like homes adjacent to their custom homes and surrounding
acreage homes.
I understand the progression of development and am for working together to create a
community that elevates and enhances this unique area. The way this development
is proposed is far from it. I strongly oppose the application and request that it be
denied before moving any further in the rezoning process.
Sincerely,
Edward Olaya
--
photo Edward Olaya
Owner, Olaya Events & Company
Explore Our Collection:
Ensemble Catering [ensemblecatering.com], Venue at the Grove
[venueatthegrove.com], and Olaya Consulting [olayaconsulting.com]
602.799.9859 | edward@olayaevents.com
www.olayaevents.com [olayaevents.com]
7010 South 27th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85041
[linkedin.com]
Page 439
Page 440
Page 441
Page 442
From: JorgeLiAna Enriquez
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Cc: JorgeLiAna Enriquez; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: case #Z-77-22
Date: Monday, July 10, 2023 6:22:33 PM
Good afternoon,
This is LiAna and Jorge Enriquez. We reside within Harvest Groves (2826). And I, Jorge am the President of the
HOA, I am also a Battalion Chief for Phoenix Fire in charge of all of South District which includes the area of this
proposed development.
We are writing as a follow-up to a voicemail left with Nayeli. We would like it noted as part of public record (and if
possible read during tonight’s meeting) that we are vehemently opposed to the current proposed project and
rezoning application (Z-77-22) mainly due to high density.
Personally- we are against it because of safety concerns, the amount of high traffic, and the fact that this may
substantially impact our property values. We live within 8-acres (as well) with only 10 home sites designated.
Parking and traffic flow proves difficult at times even with this low density. This developer wants to jam 36 homes
onto the same acreage—this will have a substantial negative impact to not only our community, our safety, traffic
flow, noise, and public safety services. There is a one way in and one way out layout that will make it extremely
difficult for Public safety (fire trucks & PD), garbage and utility vehicles to safely enter and exit, especially with
anticipated cars parked in the street, there will be no room.
Additionally, our community, as well as the community south of Harvest Groves is a gated community, currently
this planned development does not include a gate for the community which creates major safety concerns. We’d like
to see reduced density and a gate.
Professionally, as a Battalion Chief for this area and a 33-year veteran in the fire service, in my experience these
types of communities, with such high density and this type of layout, have proven extremely challenging to properly
enter and exit during an emergency.
In the event of a fire, the fire department dispatches a minimum of of Seven (7) fire department vehicles to the
scene, this layout makes it nearly impossible to safely enter and navigate.
Also, with such high density, in the event of a fire to one home the possibility of extending to another home
substantially increases.
As a Command Officer, my job is to mitigate risk at all times for the citizens, the city, for the Fire Department and
for our members. A development of this type—high density and narrow paths creates a major risk for all
stakeholders involved.
Additionally, there just doesn’t seem to be adequate public services, especially police force to keep up with adding
such high density of homes in the area. Safety, congestion, and noise is a major concern for us and will negatively
impact our quality of life.
Also, 27th Avenue is not suited to sustain a large volume of traffic flow, there are two schools within the vicinity
(just north of this proposed development) that creates traffic jams during the school year (it appears the traffic
survey was done during the time school was not in session).
Also this plan just doesn’t fit within the Laveen Villages Plan. For all these reasons we are requesting a substantial
reduction of density, as well as to make this a gated community.
Respectfully,
Jorge & LiAna Enriquez
(480) 285-5092
Harvest Groves resident
Page 443
dŽ͗ŽƵŶĐŝůǁŽŵĂŶtĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ZĞ͗ZĞͲnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƐĞͲϳϳͲϮϮͲϴ
/ĂŵƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌŽĨϲϴϮϴ^ϮϳƚŚǀĞ͕ƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞϳ͘ϲϴĂĐƌĞƐŽĨůĂŶĚƚŚĂƚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƚƌLJŝŶŐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞ
ĨƌŽŵ^Ͳϭ;ZĂŶĐŚŽƌ&ĂƌŵZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞͿƚŽZϭͲϴ͘dŚŝƐƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶϯϴƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚ/ƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůůLJ
ǁŽƵůĚƐŚĂƌĞĂǁĂůůǁŝƚŚϭϳŽĨƚŚŽƐĞŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞǁĂůůŽĨŚŽŵĞƐƚŚĂƚƐŚĂƌĞƐŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƌĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚƚŽďĞĂůůƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌLJ
ŚŽŵĞƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŵĂƚƚĞƌƐǁŽƌƐĞ͘/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝŽŶŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞ>ĂǀĞĞŶĂƌĞĂĂŶĚĂŵĨŽƌǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ
ƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŚĂƚĞůĞǀĂƚĞƐĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƐƚŚŝƐƵŶŝƋƵĞĂƌĞĂďƵƚŚĂǀĞƐĞƌŝŽƵƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐ
ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƌĞĂ
>ĂǀĞĞŶŚĂƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚĞdžƉůŽƐŝǀĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŐƌŽǁƚŚǁŚŝĐŚŚĞůƉƐĨƵĞůŽƵƌůŽĐĂůĞĐŽŶŽŵLJďƵƚĂůƐŽƐƚĂƌƚƐƚŽĚŝŵŝŶŝƐŚǁŚĂƚ
ǁĂƐŽŶĐĞĐŽǀĞƚĞĚĂƐĂĨĂƌŵŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘KƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĂůŽŶŐϮϳƚŚĂƌĞůŽŶŐ͕ŶĂƌƌŽǁůŽƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞŐƌĂŶĚĨĂƚŚĞƌĞĚ
ĨůŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƚĞƌƌŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĂůůŽǁƵƐƚŽĨĂƌŵĂŶĚƌĂŝƐĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐŽŵĞŽĨŽƵƌŶĂƚŝǀĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͘dŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŝƐǀĞƌLJĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĂŶĚĂƚƚĞŵƉƚƐƚŽďƵŝůĚϯϴŚŽŵĞƐŝŶƚŽůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϴĂĐƌĞƐ
ŽĨŶĂƌƌŽǁůĂŶĚ͘dŚĞLJĂůƌĞĂĚLJŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽďƵŝůĚϴŚŽŵĞƐŽŶƚŚĂƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁŚŝĐŚǁŽƵůĚďĞŝŶůŝŶĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ
ƌĂŶĐŚŚŽŵĞƐ͘
tĞƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽďĞĂŶŽĂƐŝƐŽĨĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞĨŽƌŽƵƌŐƌŽǁŝŶŐĨĂŵŝůLJǁŝƚŚĨƵƚƵƌĞƉůĂŶƐƚŽŐƌŽǁĨŽƌĂĨĂƌŵĞƌƐ͛
ŵĂƌŬĞƚĂŶĚĨƵĞůƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵLJƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞͲĂƉŝĞĐĞŽĨ͛ƐŚŝƐƚŽƌLJƚŚĂƚŝƐƋƵŝĐŬůLJďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ŚŽƵƐĞƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƌĞĂůĞƐƚĂƚĞ͘KƵƌϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨůĂŶĚƚŚĂƚǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůůLJƉůĂŶŶĞĚƚŽďĞŽƌĐŚĂƌĚƐ͕ŐĂƌĚĞŶƐ
ĂŶĚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĨŽƌůŽĐĂůƐĐŚŽŽůƐĂŶĚŽƵƌŽǁŶĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͕ǁŝůůďĞŶĞdžƚĚŽŽƌƚŽƚǁŽƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐůŝŶŝŶŐŽƵƌĞŶƚŝƌĞǁĂůů͘tĞ
ǁŝůůŐŽĨƌŽŵŚĂǀŝŶŐĂƋƵŝĞƚ͕ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůůLJƌŝĐŚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽϯϴďƵƐƚůŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĂůůŽĨƚŚĞŶŽŝƐĞ͕ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚǀŝƐƵĂů
ĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞƚŚĂƚŐŽĞƐĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĂƚ͘dŚŝƐǁŝůůĚĞǀĂůƵĞŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁŚŝĐŚǁĞŶĞǀĞƌƉůĂŶƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶƚŽĂ
ĐŽŶŐůŽŵĞƌĂƚĞŽĨŚŽŵĞƐĂŶĚƚĂŬĞĂǁĂLJƚŚĞĂƵƚŚĞŶƚŝĐŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ͘
dƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚŽŶŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ
tĞĂƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽĨĨĂďƵƐLJ͕ŵĂŝŶƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚĨĂƌĞŽŶϮϳ ƚŚǀĞĂŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂŶLJĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝůů
ŝŶĞǀŝƚĂďůLJƐƉŝůůŽǀĞƌŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͘dŚŝƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐĂĚĂŶŐĞƌƚŽĂŶLJŝƚLJŽĨWŚŽĞŶŝdžĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚͬŽƌĚƌŝǀŝŶŐĚŽǁŶϮϳƚŚǀĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐǁĂůŬŝŶŐŽƌƌŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌďŝŬĞƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͘
EŽŝƐĞ
dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚŚƌĞĞƚŝŵĞƐĂƐŵĂŶLJŚŽŵĞƐƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƚƌLJŝŶŐƚŽďƵŝůĚĂƐƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚŝƐƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚƚŚĞLJǁŝůůďĞ
ƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞŶŽŝƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐŽŶƚŽƉŽĨƚŚĞŶŽŝƐĞƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƌĞĂĐŚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘/Ŷ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƌŽĂĚǁĂLJŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŐĞƚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚϳϮнǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌĚĂLJĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚĞdžŝƚŝŶŐ
;ĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJͿĐĂƵƐŝŶŐĂĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚŶŽŝƐĞ͘
^ĂĨĞƚLJ
tĞŚĂǀĞŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐƐĐŚŽŽůƐŝŶĐůŽƐĞƉƌŽdžŝŵŝƚLJƚŽƚŚŝƐďƵŝůĚ;ĞƌŶĂƌĚůĂĐŬůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ͕ƌŝnjŽŶĂ>ƵƚŚĞƌĂŶĐĂĚĞŵLJĂŶĚ
^ƵŶsĂůůĞLJĐĂĚĞŵLJͿĂŶĚŵĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐĂŶĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĚƌŝǀŝŶŐĂůŽŶŐϮϳƚŚĂƌĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐͬƉĂƌĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘dŚŝƐ
ƐƚƌĞĞƚĂůƌĞĂĚLJŚĂƐĂŶŝƐƐƵĞǁŝƚŚƉĞŽƉůĞƐƉĞĞĚŝŶŐĂŶĚŶŽƚƐůŽǁŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůnjŽŶĞ͕ƐŽ/ĐĂŶŽŶůLJŝŵĂŐŝŶĞǁŚĂƚϳϬн
ŵŽƌĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďƌŝŶŐ͘
KƵƌĨŝƌĞĂŶĚƉŽůŝĐĞƐƚĂĨĨŝŶŐŝŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϴŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŝŶŽƵƌĂƌĞĂĂŶĚƚŚŝƐǁŝůůƉƵƚ
ŝŵŵĞŶƐĞƐƚƌĞƐƐŽŶŽƵƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉƉĞŽƉůĞŝŶŶĞĞĚ͘ϯϲŚŽŵĞƐŝŶĐůŽƐĞƉƌŽdžŝŵŝƚLJƚŽŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚĞĚ
ďLJĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůůĂŶĚĐŽƵůĚĐƌĞĂƚĞĂĚĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂůůŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͘ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůLJ͕ƚŚĞƌŽĂĚǁĂLJĨŽƌĂĨŝƌĞƚƌƵĐŬƚŽŐĞƚ
ŝŶĂŶĚŽƵƚŝŶƚŽƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJŝĨĐĂƌƐĂƌĞƉĂƌŬĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚŝƐǀĞƌLJŶĂƌƌŽǁĂŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĨŽƌ
ƐĂĨĞƚLJ͘
/ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚďĞĚĞŶŝĞĚ͘/ĨĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽĨŚŽŵĞƐŵƵƐƚďĞ
ďƵŝůƚŝŶƚŚŝƐƐƉĂĐĞ͕/ĂŵƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐŝƚďĞŬĞƉƚĂƚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶŝŶŐŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƵƉŚŽůĚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ
ŝŶƚŚŝƐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽƌĂƚŵŽƐƚZϭͲϭϴ͘
Page 444
>ĂƐƚůLJ͕/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽŵĂŬĞŵĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚǁĞŚĂǀĞŚĂĚĚŽnjĞŶƐŽĨŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁƌŝƚĞůĞƚƚĞƌƐŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐďƵƚǁĞŽŶůLJ
ƐĞĞŽŶĞƚŚĂƚŝƐĨŝůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘/ďĞůŝĞǀĞŵĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞůĞƚƚĞƌƐŵĂLJŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŝŽƌ
ůĂǁƚĞĂŵďƵƚ/ĐĂŶ͛ƚďĞĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐƐĞƌŝŽƵƐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽƉƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚŽŶĞůĞƚƚĞƌŝƐŶŽƚŐŝǀŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ
ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶŝƐŚĂǀŝŶŐ͘/ŚĂǀĞĂƐŬĞĚŽƵƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŽƌĞƐĞŶĚďƵƚǁĂŶƚĞĚLJŽƵƚŽďĞĂǁĂƌĞ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
ƌŝĚŐĞƚĂŶĚDĂƚƚĂůĞLJ
Page 445
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Margie Colio
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 1:03 PM
To: PDD Laveen VPC; council.district8@phoenix.gov; council.district7@phoenix.gov; Racelle Escolar;
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: opposing the rezoning for in Case No. Z-77-22 (6844 S. 27th Ave)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
PlanningDepartmentandCouncilPeople,
PleaseinsertthiszoningprotestopposingtherezoningappliedforinCaseNo.ZͲ77Ͳ22(6844S.27thAve)tochangethe
designationfromSͲ1toR1Ͳ8PRDinallpackets,attachments,writtencommunicationsprovidedtoCitystaff,committee
members,commissionmembersandmembersoftheCityCouncilaspartofthepublicrecord/applicationforany
planningorlegislativemeetingsand/orhearingsforthisapplication/case.
BelowarethereasonsIstronglyopposethisrezoning:
1. Density
The33singleͲfamilyresidencesproposedon7.8acresisoutofreasonforthesurroundingarea.Therezoning
ordinanceifgrantedcreatesdensitymuchhigherthantheexistingresidentialRanchpropertyandranchuses
immediatelytothenorthandsouthofthelot.Allsurroundinghomeson27thAvearelargerlotsthatpreservethe
richagriculturehistoryofthisarea.
2. Noise
Therearethreetimesasmanyhomesasthehomesadjacenttothisspaceandtheywillbeseriouslyimpactedbythe
noiseoftheseresidencesontopofthenoisethatwillreachtheadjacentcommunity.Inaddition,theroadway
neededtogetintotheresidenceswillhaveanestimated72+vehiclesperdayenteringandexiting(accordingtothe
trafficstudy)causingaconsiderableamountoftrafficandsubsequentnoise.
3. Safety
Therearenumeroussafetyconcernswith36newhomesinasmallpieceoflandcomingtoourLaveen
neighborhood.
AdjacentSchools(BernardBlackElementary&ArizonaLutheranAcademy)
Wehavetwoschoolsoffof27 Ave,whichisalreadybecominganincreasinglybusythoroughfare,oftenwithpeople
th
speedingthrougha15MPHschoolzone.Adding70+vehiclesperdaytothisroadwillcausesafetyconcernsfor
pedestriansandtheseschoolsthathavechildrencomingandgoing.Thereisnowidewalkwayalong27 Aveadding
th
totheconcernsforsafety.
FireandPoliceSupport
OurfireandpolicestaffinginDistrict8isalreadycompromisedwiththenewdevelopmentsinourareaandthiswill
putimmensestressonourresourcestohelppeopleinneed.PhoenixFireDepartmentis44%belowresponsetime
goalandresponsetimesforEMSis83%lowerthangoal.36homesincloseproximitytooneanotherand
surroundedbyagriculturallandcouldcreateadangeroussituationforallinthearea.Additionally,theroadwayfor
afiretrucktogetinandoutintothiscommunity,especiallyifcarsareparkedalongthestreetwillcreateahuge
risk.
VehicleTraffic
Page 446
Wearelocatedoffabusy,mainthoroughfareon27 Aveandparkinganyadditionalvehiclesinthecommunitywill
th
inevitablyspilloverontotheroad.ThispresentsadangertoanyCityofPhoenixemergencyvehiclesenteringthe
community.Therearealreadyanumberofcarsswipedbyfiretruckson27 astheyrushtoemergenciesandthe
th
CityofPhoenixistheonethatfootsthatbill.
4. LossofFarmingandAgriculture
ItisnosecretinArizonathatagricultureisinalosingbattlewithurbandevelopmentandthisplotoflandisnotonly
zonedforagricultureandfarming,buthaspreciouswaterrightswithfloodirrigation.Thispropertywillforeverlose
itsabilitytogivebacktothecommunityinameaningfulwayanditsmanyresidenceswilltakemoreresourcesthat
Arizonacontinuestostruggletoprovideitscommunities(localfoodandwatertogrow).Additionally,thisproperty
has,fordecades,beenhometowildlifeandpacksofcoyotes.Nomattertheoutcomeornumberofhomes,
assessmentsonwildlifesuchasburrowingowlsandcoyotesmustbetakenintoconsiderationandplanstomitigate
thelossofhabitattakenintoaccount.Weunderstandthatadeveloperisseekingtobuildasmanyhomesas
possibleonthisland,howeverit’spossibletostillpreserveagriculturallandifthelotsarelargerwithfewerhomes.
5. CharacterofArea
TheRezoningUseisinconsistentwiththecharacterofthesurroundingfloodirrigated,ruralareawithitslongͲ
standingidentitydefinedbyopenspaceandfarming/ranching.Theproposedrezoningandlayoutwilldevalue
theadjacentHarvestGrovescommunityaswellasthetwopropertiestotheNorth(6828S27 Aveand6832S
th
27 Ave)byputtingthiscommunityadjacenttotheircustomhomesandsurroundingacreagehomes.I
th
understandtheprogressionofdevelopmentandamforworkingtogethertocreateacommunitythatelevates
andenhancesthisuniquearea.Thewaythisdevelopmentisproposedisfarfromit.
Whatweproposeinstead:IstronglyopposetheapplicationandseektohavethisreͲevaluatedandkeptatthecurrent
zoning.Thiswouldensuretheintegrityoftheareaupheld,withhomesonanacreofpropertyaswellasensurethe
burdenonthecommunityandlocalPDandFireislessened.
Sincerely,
MargieColio
2818WHarvestGrovesLN
Phoenix,AZ85041
Page 447
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
Date of VPC Meeting August 14, 2023
Request From S-1
Request To R1-8
Proposed Use Single-family residential
Location Approximately 40 feet north of the northwest corner of
27th Avenue and Harvest Groves Lane
VPC Recommendation Continued
VPC Vote 7-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the applicant for Z-77-22-8 has requested a
continuance.
Applicant Presentation:
None.
Questions From Committee:
None.
Public Comments:
Phil Hertel noted that the applicant has worked with the Laveen Citizens for
Responsible Development (LCRD) and is supportive of the continuance.
Stephanie Hoffman stated that she did not support the rezoning request. Ms. Daley
noted that the proposed request was not compatible with the surrounding large lot
houses and agrarian land uses. Ms. Daley concluded her comment by stating that
Laveen needs large agrarian properties.
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 448
Applicant Response:
None.
Committee Discussion:
None.
Motion:
Jennifer Rouse motioned to continue Z-77-22-8 to the September meeting. Vice Chair
Stephanie Hurd seconded the motion.
Vote:
7-0, Motion to continue passed, with Committee Members Barraza, Nasser-Taylor,
Ortega, Rouse, Rubio-Raffin, Hurd, and Abegg in favor.
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 449
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2023
Request From S-1
Request To R1-8
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 40 feet north of the northwest corner of
27th Avenue and Harvest Groves Lanes
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications and additional stipulations.
VPC Vote 7-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Nineteen members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. Six
members of the public donated their time.
Staff Presentation:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, presented an overview of Z-77-22-8. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
discussed the location of the site, the requested zoning designation, the surrounding
land uses, and the General Plan Land Use Map designation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
provided an overview of the proposed development including the site plan and
elevations. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the staff
findings, providing the staff recommendation and proposed stipulations.
Applicant Presentation:
Wendy Riddell, representing the applicant with Berry Riddell LLC, provided an
overview of the proposed case. Ms. Riddell displayed the site plan and stated that they
had additional stipulations that would address the community’s concerns. Ms. Riddell
noted that the new proposal would be gated, limited to 33 single-family houses, and a
disclosure would be required regarding agricultural uses and the event venue to the
south. Ms. Riddell added that the proposal consisted of approximately 30% open
space and that the development would have detached sidewalks for extra safety. Ms.
Riddell concluded the applicant presentation by displaying the proposed elevations
and summarizing the proposed modifications to existing stipulations and proposed
stipulations.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 450
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 2
Questions from the committee:
Patrick Nasser-Taylor asked if the previous landowner was located on the adjacent
houses along 27th Avenue. Ms. Riddell stated that the original property owner was
gone. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked what additional meetings were held regarding the
rezoning case. Ms. Riddell noted that they held several meetings and went door to
door. Ms. Riddell added that the redlined stipulations addressed concerns heard from
the community.
Rebecca Perrera asked for more information regarding the impact fees because the
property is both in Maricopa County and the City. Ms. Riddell noted that the 27th
Avenue right-of-way belongs to Maricopa County and that the Streets Transportation
Department had indicated that the right-of-way would be annexed into the City. Ms.
Riddell stated that the proposal is located within the City and as a result impact fees
would go to the City and not Maricopa County.
Carlos Ortega asked how the development would handle traffic along 27th Avenue
during and after construction. Ms. Riddell noted that the 27th Avenue right-of-way
would be annexed into the City and would be developed to City standards. Mr. Ortega
asked for more information regarding emergency services. Ms. Riddell noted that they
have contacted the Fire Department and they have confirmed that they would be able
to provide emergency services. Mr. Ortega asked why one-story houses were located
predominately on the south side. Ms. Riddell noted that to the south is the Harvest
Groves community and they had concerns regarding the proposed height along the
south side of the proposal. Mr. Ortega noted that he would like to hear from Harvest
Groves and how the proposal would affect their community. Ms. Riddell noted that he
proposed stipulation addressed the concerns with the proposed height and that both
the south and north side of the proposal included a landscape buffer.
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd noted that she agreed with Committee Member Ortega’s
concerns.
Chair Linda Abegg noted that she would like to find a compromise regarding the
proposed height. Chair Abegg noted that she wanted the public comment to voice their
opinion regarding two-stories vs. one-story and if they favored 27 single-family
residential units rather than the proposed 33.
Public Comment:
Clifford Mattice noted that he belonged to the Harvest Groves community and their
community also consisted of approximately seven acres but with 15 houses rather
than the proposed 33. Mr. Mattice noted that their community had extensive
landscaping and that the proposal was not consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Map designation and that they should be required to file for a General Plan
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 451
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 3
Amendment. Mr. Mattice noted that the current zoning already allowed for eight
houses. Mr. Mattice added that the rezoning sign was difficult to read due to the
vegetation on the site. Mr. Mattice stated that he was opposed to two-story houses on
the south side of the development and that he only agreed to 16 total single-family
houses. Mr. Mattice added that he would like a stipulation to cap the density and
prevent property owners from renting.
Bridget Daley stated that Arizona has been losing farmland at an alarming rate. Ms.
Daley noted that she purchased the property to the north to start a community garden
and give back to her community. Ms. Daley added that she was opposed to the
proposed height and had concerns of two-story houses looking over into per property.
Ms. Daley noted that the applicant has not addressed the concerns and that the
proposal would cause significant noise and traffic; furthermore, she had concerns with
pollution runoff from the proposed development. Ms. Daley added that emergency
services response time is not adequate within Laveen. Ms. Daley concluded her
comment by stating that the proposal will devalue her property and that the applicant
should conduct an environmental impact study. Chair Abegg asked if Ms. Daley was
opposed to mixing one-story and two-story houses. Ms. Daley stated that she would
like to see two-story houses more to the west and the end of her property. Chair
Abegg asked if she was opposed or in favor of 27 single-family houses. Ms. Daley
was opposed.
Alexandria Hoffman stated that she opposed the proposal.
Stephanie Hoffman stated that she lived along the west side of the property and that
the current S-1 zoning is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Hoffman
stated that the current vacant property serves numerous desert wildlife, and the
proposal would negatively affect the established landscaping and ecosystem. Ms.
Hoffman noted that the existing zoning preserves farm and agricultural uses within
Laveen. Ms. Hoffman added that a petition will be provided to staff and that members
of the community were unaware of the proposed rezoning case.
Elena Hoffman stated that she was opposed to the proposed rezoning case and the
removal of large vacant land. Ms. Hoffman stated that Laveen has been moving away
from its agricultural roots. Ms. Hoffman reiterated that she was opposed to the
proposal and that Laveen should preserve their agricultural land.
Margie Colio stated that the rezoning sign was not visible and was hidden behind
overgrown vegetation. Ms. Colio stated that she was opposed to the development and
that people are unaware of the proposal.
Ravi Arora stated that on-street parking within the development would not allow the
Fire Department to provide adequate services.
Tracie Riggs asked if a traffic study has been conducted. Ms. Riddell stated that one
has been submitted but is still under revision. Ms. Riggs stated that the proposal
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 452
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 4
should not be approved without a completed study. Ms. Riggs added that right-in and
right-out is not enough to prevent traffic congestion and that the site plan might be
modified to reflect the results from the traffic study.
Jorge Enriquez stated that he had concerns with the Fire and Police Department
providing adequate service. Mr. Enriquez noted that he opposed the elevations and
the proposal. Mr. Enriquez added that he opposed renting these properties but that he
would support 16 single-family houses with a maximum height of one-story.
Edward Olaya stated that he was the business owner of the venue to the south and
that he was opposed to the proposed density. Mr. Olaya stated that he had concerns
with the proposed quality of the development and traffic congestion. Mr. Olaya noted
that the number of houses would increase on-street parking and increase traffic
congestion and safety concerns. Mr. Olaya added that he was opposed to the
configuration of the site.
Robert Branscomb noted that the applicant has worked with the Laveen Citizens for
Responsible Development (LCRD) and that they approve of the size and proposed
lots. Mr. Branscomb added that he would like to see enhanced garage doors and
prohibit street parking. Mr. Branscomb encouraged the applicant to continue working
with the community to address any other concerns.
Dan Penton stated that another development with Laveen had been pushing for a
similar product and it turned into rental properties. Mr. Penton stated that the
community had valid concerns regarding the proposal and wanted to prevent a rental
community. Mr. Penton stated that he wanted a way to ensure that the proposal would
not be converted to rental properties and that he was in favor of 16 lots.
Phil Hertel noted that he was opposed to recommending R1-10 zoning as it would
allow for group homes. Mr. Hertel stated that the rezoning case was not property
advertised and that the developer has not created this type of housing product before.
Mr. Hertel added that he agreed with all the other comments made by the community.
Applicant Response:
Ms. Riddell stated that the applicant has proposed a stipulation to ensure quality
elevations along the street frontage. Ms. Riddell noted that the developer would be
required to salvage mature trees and that a 60-foot buffer would be provided along the
south side. Ms. Riddell added that they continue to work with Maricopa County and the
City to improve 27th Avenue. Ms. Riddell stated that a stipulation is proposed to
ensure that the venue is not affected by the development and that the development
will be platted to prevent rental properties. Ms. Riddell added that a stipulation was
proposed to prohibit accessory dwelling units.
Mixen Rubio-Raffin stated that the development will be gated and walled due to
community’s concerns; however, this could affect wildlife. Ms. Rubio-Raffin stated that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 453
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 5
she had concerns regarding the properties to the north and south.
Ms. Perrera asked for more information regarding runoff and irrigation for the
proposed development. Ms. Riddell stated that the proposal is required to meet 100-
year flood requirements through the site planning process. Ms. Perrera asked if the
development is required to conduct a study regarding salvaging wildlife. Ms. Riddell
stated that mature landscaping must be salvaged through the site planning process;
however, wildlife is not part of the process.
Vice Chair Hurd asked the applicant if they could do an environmental study
regarding wildlife. Ms. Riddell stated that they could explore the idea but could not
commit to an added stipulation requiring an environmental study.
Mr. Ortega stated that he was glad to see the community involved in the proposed
development. Mr. Ortega spoke about a past case and how the community was not
involved in the process. Mr. Ortega noted that the density should be reduced and
something to protect the community from rentals. Mr. Ortega added that he wants
future homeowners to be aware of the venue to the south. Ms. Riddell noted that a
stipulation has been proposed that would disclose the venue to the south.
JoAnne Jensen asked for more information regarding the traffic study and if the
development would allow for on-street parking. Ms. Riddell noted that 27th Avenue is
an arterial that can handle up to 50,000 vehicular trips. Ms. Riddell added that the
traffic study was conducted when 40 lots were proposed and that they agreed to
prohibit on-street parking. Ms. Jensen asked if proposal would include a two-car
garage. Ms. Riddell confirmed.
Francisco Barraza stated that he agreed with the committee’s concerns and that he
encourages the applicant to continue to work with the community.
Chair Abegg stated that property owners have the right to sell their land.
Committee Discussion:
Mr. Barraza noted that the biggest concern was the proposed density.
Ms. Jensen stated that change is inevitable, but the committee could shape the
change to be respectful to the surrounding land uses and established neighborhoods.
Ms. Jensen stated that she supported prohibiting on-street parking, reducing the
density, and a maximum height of one-story.
Mr. Ortega agreed that density is a concern and that he would like to see a variation
between one-story and two-story houses.
Ms. Perrera stated that there is a lot of disagreement between the community and the
applicant. Ms. Perrera suggested that the concerns be addressed prior to the case
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 454
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 6
moving forward and that she favored a mix of one-story and two-story houses rather
than one-story houses along the south and two-story houses along the north.
Ms. Rubio-Raffin stated that she was not opposed to the proposed density. Ms.
Rubio-Raffin stated that agricultural property owners should have a positive
relationship with their neighbors.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he did not want the venue to the south to close due to
the new development. Mr. Barraza agreed and added that the business should be
protected.
Vice Chair Hurd stated that even though the site has been zoned S-1 for numerous
years, the community’s concerns are valid and taken into consideration. Vice Chair
Hurd noted that she understood that agricultural land has been reduced, but the
committee can not prevent a property owner from selling their land. Vice Chair Hurd
noted that the committee continues to work with the community and developers to
ensure a proper development.
Chair Abegg noted that all the proposed modifications and additional stipulations are
address community concerns. Chair Abegg noted that they have had discussions with
the developer, Planning Commission, and City Council in order to find a compromise.
Chair Abegg added that a community concern has been wildlife and possibly requiring
an animal or wildlife survey. Mr. Penton stated that a stipulation could be added to
require an environmental study. Chair Abegg supported an added stipulation to
address the environmental impacts on established wildlife. Ms. Jensen noted that she
did not support a stipulation that could not be enforced. Ms. Riddell stated that she
understood the community concern but that she could not agree to an environmental
study. Ms. Daley asked for more outreach between the applicant and the community
regarding a study. Ms. Riddell agreed to continue the discussion.
Chair Abegg stated that she would like an added stipulation limiting the development
to 27 lots. Chair Abegg noted that additional housing is a priority within the City.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor recommended doubling the landscaping to cover the community.
Vice Chair Hurd stated that a 60-foot landscape buffer is provided along the south
side. Vice Chair Hurd stated that she would like to further buffer the north property
line.
Chair Abegg noted that there should be a mix of one-story and two-story houses.
Ms. Jensen stated that a stipulation requires landscaping on the buffer.
Mr. Ortega stated that the south side of the development got a buffer, and one should
be added to the north.
Ms. Perrera stated that mixed comments have been heard from the community
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 455
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 7
regarding the proposed height. Vice Chair Hurd proposed a stipulation that would
vary the one-story and two-story houses throughout the development.
Motion:
JoAnne Jensen motioned to recommend approval of Z-77-22-8 per the staff
recommendation with the modifications to Stipulation Nos. 1 and 4 (2) regarding
building elevations and number of lots and the following additional stipulations:
• The developer shall provide a secure and gated development, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
• A minimum lot width of 50 feet shall be provided, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
• The number of two-story homes shall be limited to a maximum of 40% with the
homes abutting existing homes to the east (lots 1 and 33) to be one story in
height with no more than three adjacent two-story homes.
• The developer shall plat individual lots.
• The property owner shall record documents that disclose the operational
characteristics of the existing agricultural and commercial uses adjacent to the
site.
• Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted within the development.
• Each individual front building plane shall have articulation or staggering a
minimum of 5ft in depth as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
• Street parking shall be prohibited.
Carlos Ortega second the motion.
Vote:
7-1, Motion passed with Committee Members Barraza, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor,
Ortega, Perrera, Hurd, and Abegg in favor, and Committee Member Rubio-Raffin in
opposition.
VPC Recommended Stipulations:
1. All building elevations shall contain architectural features that reflect
modern farmhouse architecture including, but not limited to, detailing such
as pitched roofs, variation in window size, overhang canopies and exterior
accent materials such as board and batten siding, stone, brick veneer, and
carriage style UPGRADED garage doors, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
A. ALL STREET FACING ELEVATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM
OF 25% EXTERIOR ACCENT MATERIALS, NOT INCLUDING
STUCCO, AS NOTED ABOVE.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 456
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 8
B. ALL REAR FACING SINGLE-STORY ELEVATIONS SHALL
CONTAIN AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING
ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING:
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS, RECESSES,
VARIATION IN WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION, AND
OVERHANG CANOPIES, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
C. ALL REAR FACING TWO-STORY ELEVATIONS SHALL
CONTAIN AT LEAST THREE OF THE FOLLOWING
ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING:
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS, RECESSES,
VARIATION IN WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION, AND
OVERHANG CANOPIES, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
D. ALL GARAGE DOORS SHALL HAVE DECORATIVE
EMBELLISHMENTS SUCH AS WINDOW PANELS, ADDED
MATERIALS SURROUNDING THE DOOR, OR TRELLISES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
2. EACH INDIVIDUAL FRONT BUILDING PLANE SHALL HAVE
ARTICULATION OR STAGGERING A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET IN DEPTH
AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
3. THE NUMBER OF TWO-STORY HOMES SHALL BE LIMITED TO A
MAXIMUM OF 40% WITH THE HOMES ABUTTING EXISTING HOMES
TO THE EAST (LOTS 1 AND 33) TO BE ONE STORY IN HEIGHT WITH
NO MORE THAN THREE ADJACENT TWO-STORY HOMES.
2. The project shall not exceed 36 27 lots.
4.
5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PLAT INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
6. A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE FOR A SECURE AND GATED
7. DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
3. A minimum 60-foot-wide open space buffer shall be provided along the
8. south perimeter of the site.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 457
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 9
4. The open space buffer along the south perimeter of the site shall be planted
9. with minimum 25% 2-inch caliper and minimum 75% 3-inch caliper large
canopy, drought tolerant trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum 22-foot garage setback for front-loaded garages, measured
10. from the back of sidewalk, shall be provided for each home in the
development, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a minimum 5-foot-wide
11. landscape strip between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be provided
within the development, planted to the following standards and as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant, large canopy, single-trunk
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with
a pedestrian environment.
12. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN
THE DEVELOPMENT.
7. A total of 65 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of 27th
13. Avenue or as approved by Maricopa County.
8. Street improvements to 27th Avenue are outside of Phoenix City Limits and
14. shall be reviewed and approved by Maricopa County. Documentation of
the county review and approval shall be provided prior to Preliminary Site
Plan approval.
15. STREET PARKING IS PROHIBITED.
9. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
16. paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department and Maricopa County. All improvements shall comply with all
ADA accessibility standards.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
17. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 458
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-77-22-8
September 11, 2023
Page 10
or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall
be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
18. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT
DISCLOSE THE OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
EXISTING AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL USES ADJACENT TO
THE SITE.
11. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant
19. shall conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey
report of the development area for review and approval by the City
Archaeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or
grading approval.
12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
20. Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary,
the applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery
excavations.
13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction,
21. the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within
a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow
time for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
14. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
22. Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with
the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation and Additional Stipulations:
Staff does not recommend the addition of Stipulation No. 12. If the rezoning request is
approved, all allowable uses within the R1-8 zoning district will be permitted on site.
The Street Transportation Department does not recommend the addition of Stipulation
No. 15 as the development proposes a private accessway in a gated subdivision that
meets city requirements to allow on-street parking.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 459
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 5, 2023
ITEM NO: 15
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-77-22-8 (Continued from September 7, 2023)
Location: Approximately 40 feet north of the northwest corner of 27th Avenue and
Harvest Groves Lane
From: S-1
To: R1-8
Acreage: 7.68
Proposal: Single-family residential
Applicant: Equity Connect Holdings, LLC
Owner: 27 Southern, LLC
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 8/14/2023 Continued. Vote: 7-0.
Laveen 9/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications and additional
stipulations. Vote: 7-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with deleted and modified stipulations.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioner Perez made a MOTION to approve Z-77-22-8, per the Laveen Village Planning
Committee recommendation, with the deletion of Stipulation Nos. 12 and 15.
Commissioner Gorraiz SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Gorraiz asked to AMEND THE MOTION to increase the number of lots to 33,
modify Stipulation No. 3 (regarding the limitation on two-story homes) per the applicant’s
request, and delete Stipulation No. 7 (regarding gating the development).
Commissioner Perez did not accept the amended motion.
Commissioner Gorraiz made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve Z-77-22-8, per the Laveen
Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the deletion of Stipulation Nos. 7, 12 and 15,
and to increase the number of lots to 33 and modify Stipulation No. 3 (regarding the limitation on
two-story homes) per the applicant’s request.
Chairman Howard SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Simon asked for a friendly amendment to include that there be no more than
three adjacent two-story homes.
Page 460
The representative, Wendy Riddell, Commissioner Gorraiz, and Chairman Howard agreed.
Motion Details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve Z-77-22-8,
per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the deletion of Stipulation
Nos. 7, 12 and 15, and to increase the number of lots to 33 and modify Stipulation No. 3
(regarding the limitation on two-story homes) per the applicant’s request with no more than
three adjacent two-story homes.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Chairman Howard
Vote: 6-1 (Perez)
Absent: Gaynor and Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal will develop vacant property and provide a high quality single-family
residential development adjacent to an arterial street and help alleviate the housing
shortage in Phoenix.
2. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result in a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The development will provide
increased shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island effect.
3. The stipulated landscaping and planting standards are above the required minimum
standards and will make the development compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Stipulations:
1. All building elevations shall contain architectural features that reflect modern farmhouse
architecture including, but not limited to, detailing such as pitched roofs, variation in
window size, overhang canopies and exterior accent materials such as board and
batten siding, stone, brick veneer, and carriage style UPGRADED garage doors, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
A. ALL STREET FACING ELEVATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 25%
EXTERIOR ACCENT MATERIALS, NOT INCLUDING STUCCO, AS NOTED
ABOVE.
B. ALL REAR FACING SINGLE-STORY ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN AT
LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS
AND DETAILING: TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS,
RECESSES, VARIATION IN WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION, AND
OVERHANG CANOPIES, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
C. ALL REAR FACING TWO-STORY ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN AT LEAST
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS AND
DETAILING: TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS, RECESSES,
VARIATION IN WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION, AND OVERHANG
CANOPIES, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
Page 461
D. ALL GARAGE DOORS SHALL HAVE DECORATIVE EMBELLISHMENTS
SUCH AS WINDOW PANELS, ADDED MATERIALS SURROUNDING THE
DOOR, OR TRELLISES, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. EACH INDIVIDUAL FRONT BUILDING PLANE SHALL HAVE ARTICULATION OR
STAGGERING A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET IN DEPTH AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
3. THE NUMBER OF TWO-STORY HOMES SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF
40% WITH THE HOMES ABUTTING THE EXISTING HOMES TO THE EAST (LOTS 1
AND 33) SHALL BE LIMITED TO BE ONE STORY IN HEIGHT AND WITH NO MORE
THAN THREE ADJACENT TWO-STORY HOMES.
2. The project shall not exceed 36 27 33 lots.
4.
5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PLAT INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
6. A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE FOR A SECURE AND GATED
7. DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
3. A minimum 60-foot-wide open space buffer shall be provided along the south perimeter
8. of the site.
7.
4. The open space buffer along the south perimeter of the site shall be planted with
9. minimum 25% 2-inch caliper and minimum 75% 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought
8. tolerant trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum 22-foot garage setback for front-loaded garages, measured from the back
10. of sidewalk, shall be provided for each home in the development, as approved by the
9. Planning and Development Department.
6. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip
11. between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be provided within the development,
10. planted to the following standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant, large canopy, single-trunk shade trees
planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
Page 462
12. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT.
7. A total of 65 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of 27th Avenue or
13. as approved by Maricopa County.
11.
8. Street improvements to 27th Avenue are outside of Phoenix City Limits and shall be
14. reviewed and approved by Maricopa County. Documentation of the county review and
12. approval shall be provided prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval.
15. STREET PARKING IS PROHIBITED.
9. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
16. curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping, and other incidentals, as
13. per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department and Maricopa
County. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
17. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
14. the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
18. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE THE
15. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL AND
COMMERCIAL USES ADJACENT TO THE SITE.
11. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall conduct
19. Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development
16. area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing and grubbing,
landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
20. data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
17. determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
21. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius
18. of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office
to properly assess the materials.
14. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
22. waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
19. Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file
for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz 602-602-291-2559, TTY use 7-1-1
Page 463
105-91-276 105-91-283 105-91-289
105-91-217 105-91-245 105-91-260 105-91-264
105-91-212 105-91-249 105-91-271 105-91-288
105-91-275 105-91-284
105-91-213 105-91-216 105-91-246 105-91-263 105-91-272 105-91-285 105-91-287
I 105-91-248 105-91-261 105-91-274
0 105-91-262
105-91-540 105-91-214 105-91-215 105-91-247 105-88-009A
105-91-286
29TH DR 105-91-273
100 105-91-541
105-98-862 105-91-542
105-88-838
105-92-053
105-98-863 105-92-026
Legend 105-98-916 105-92-027
105-98-861 105-92-057 105-92-025
105-98-866 105-88-839
Signed Petition
105-92-028
200 Feet 105-88-837
105-98-914
105-98-921 105-98-922 28TH LN 105-92-029 105-92-024
105-98-900 105-98-867
Lots/Tracts/Condos
105-98-899 105-98-884 105-98-883
Zoning Petition
105-98-865 Area
105-88-8 105-88-836 105-92-030 105-92-023
105-98-864
105-98-901 105-98-898
105-98-868 40
105-98-885 105-98-882 105-92-031 105-92-022
105-98-902 105-98-897 105-98-869 105-92-032 105-92-021
105-98-886 105-98-881 105-88-835
Proposed Amendment Area
105-92-033 105-92-020
105-98-903 105-98-896 105-98-887 105-98-880 105-98-870
105-92-034 105-92-019
105-98-904 105-88-834
105-98-888 105-98-879 105-98-871
105-98-895 105-92-035 105-92-018
105-98-905 105-98-894 105-98-889 105-98-878 105-98-872 105-92-036 105-92-017
CARSON RD
105-98-893 105-88-833
105-98-890 105-98-877 105-92-054
105-98-906 105-98-873 105-88-842 105-88-018K
105-92-037
105-98-892 105-98-891 105-98-876 105-92-016
MINTON ST
105-98-874
105-88-832 105-92-038
105-88-742
105-98-920 105-98-923 105-92-015
105-88-010F
105-98-875 105-92-039
105-92-014
105-98-915 105-88-018F
105-92-040
105-88-018E
105-88-831 105-92-013 105-92-052
105-88-976 105-92-041
105-92-012
105-98-907 105-92-042
ATTACHMENT E
105-92-011
105-98-908 105-92-043
105-88-830 105-92-010
105-92-044
105-98-909 105-88-017F 105-92-009
105-92-045
105-92-008
105-98-910 105-92-046
105-92-007
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept. 10/12/2023
105-98-911 105-92-047
105-88-017C 105-88-841 105-92-006
105-92-048
105-98-912 105-88-019Z 105-92-005
105-92-049
105-88-829 105-88-018D
105-98-913 27TH DR
Lots/Tracts/Condos: 10/27 = 37%
105-92-050
# of 105-88-974
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
105-88-017B
105-92-051
105-88-012
105-88-018J
3C 105-92-055 105-92-001 105-92-002 105-92-003 105-92-004
105-98-919
8 8- 56
5- 2-0
10 5-9
27TH AVE
Petition Verification Map
5-8
105-91-728 5-2 105-85-234
33 105-86-923
105-86-712
105-86-012M 105-91-599
105-91-666
% Area = 8.15ac./20.35ac. = 40%105-91-665
10 105-91-598 105-85-167 105-85-164 105-85-163 105-86-713 105-86-714
5- 105-85-166 105-85-162 105-86-711
91 105-86-015G 105-85-168 105-86-001A 105-86-001B
-7 105-91-597
105-86-956
26TH LN 29
105-85-165
105-85-161 105-86-710 105-86-942
105-91-730 105-91-596
VINEYARD RD
105-91-664 105-91-555 105-85-169 105-85-217 105-85-231 105-85-216 105-86-662 105-86-661
Page 464
for Z-77-22-8
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-77-22\Z-77-22_Three_Quarter_Vote_Map.aprx
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ Z-77-22-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Approximately 40 opposition x applicant
feet north of the
northwest corner of
27th Avenue and
Harvest Groves Lane
APPEALED FROM: PC 10/5/2023 6844 South 27th Avenue
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 11/1/2023 Bridget Daley
HEARING 925-321-9720
thedaleys14@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Significant negative impact on surrounding residences.
RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 10/11/2023
Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes GIS
Racelle Escolar Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals only)
Sarah Stockham Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Heather Klotz Applicant
REVISED 9/18/2023 vcm
Page 465
Page 466
Page 467
Page 468
$77$&+0(17F
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Amber Villalvazo
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 12:47 PM
To: PDD Laveen VPC; Racelle Escolar; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Z-77-22-8 support
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I’mwritinginsupportoftheupcominghousingdevelopmentat27thandSouthern.Wehaveamajorhousing
shortage.Theonlywaytofixthisistoaddmorehousing.Thisareaalsoneedsmoreaffordablehousing.I’minfull
support.
Thanks,
AmberVillalvazo
5325WSamanthaWay
Laveen,AZ85339
SentfromYahooMailforiPhone[mail.onelink.me]
Page 469
ATTACHMENT G
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: stephaniehoffman76@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:16 PM
To: PDD Laveen VPC; council.district7@phoenix.gov; council.district8@phoenix.gov; Racelle Escolar
Subject: Re: Case No. Z-77-22 (6844 S. 27th Ave)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
PlanningDepartmentandCouncilPeople,
PleaseinsertthiszoningprotestopposingtherezoningappliedforinCaseNo.ZͲ77Ͳ22(6844S.27thAve)tochangethe
designationfromSͲ1toR1Ͳ8PRDinallpackets,attachments,writtencommunicationsprovidedtoCitystaff,committee
members,commissionmembersandmembersoftheCityCouncilaspartofthepublicrecord/applicationforany
planningorlegislativemeetingsand/orhearingsforthisapplication/case.
BelowarethereasonsIstronglyopposethisrezoning:
Whatweproposeinstead:IstronglyopposetheapplicationandseektohavethisreͲevaluatedandkeptatthecurrent
zoning.Thiswouldensuretheintegrityoftheareaupheld,withhomesonanacreofpropertyaswellasensurethe
burdenonthecommunityandlocalPDandFireislessened.
Sincerely,
StephanieHoffman
2909W.MaldonadoRd.
Phoenix,AZ85041
Cell:602Ͳ920Ͳ5708
Email:stephaniehoffman76@yahoo.com
P.S.Pleasenote,wealsohaveasignedpetitionwithmultiplesignaturesalsoshowingoppositiontotherezoningthatwe
willsubmitduringthecouncilplanningmeetingscheduledfortomorrow,MondaySeptember11th2023at6:30p.m.at
theLaveeneducationcenter.
Page 470
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Case No. Z-77-22 (6844 S. 27th Ave)
From:stephaniehoffman76@yahoo.com
Sent:Sunday,September10,202310:29PM
To:PDDLaveenVPC
Escolar
Subject:Re:CaseNo.ZͲ77Ͳ22(6844S.27thAve)
Pleaseacceptmyapologiesfortheincorrectemailpreviouslysent.IwashavingtechnicaldifficultiesandI'mnotsure
whathappenedtothemaincontent.Pleasefindthecorrectemailbelow:
PlanningDepartmentandCouncilmembers,
PleaseinsertthiszoningprotestopposingtherezoningappliedforinCaseNo.ZͲ77Ͳ22(6844S.27thAve)tochangethe
designationfromSͲ1toR1Ͳ8PRDinallpackets,attachments,writtencommunicationsprovidedtoCitystaff,committee
members,commissionmembersandmembersoftheCityCouncilaspartofthepublicrecord/applicationforany
planningorlegislativemeetingsand/orhearingsforthisapplication/case.
BelowarethereasonsIstronglyopposethisrezoning:
InsidethefrontcoveroftheLaveenVillageCharacterplanitstates:
"SteepedinnaturalbeautyandAGRICULTURALheritage,theLaveenVillagehasbeenlongvaluedbyfarmers,
equestrians,andthoselookingforsolitudeandmountainaccess."
Additionally,withinthecharacterplanareseveralothermentionsthatIfindrelevanttothegrievance/appealIam
submittingtoyoutodayasfollows:
Page8:Plans:
Ͳ"EstablishanAPPROPRIATEandBALANCEDhousingmixthatalsoencouragesdevelopmentthatPROTECTSEXISTING
residentialLIFESTYLESandnaturalresources"
Ͳ"...StandardsthatencouragedevelopmentthatisbothSYMPATHETICandrespondstotheareascultural,historicaland
AGRICULTURALassets."
Page10Ͳ11:LandUse:
Ͳ"PROTECTresidentialareasfromconcentrationsofincompatiblelandusethatcouldchangetheirCHARACTERor
destabilizelandvalue."
Ͳ"Provideefficientemergencyservicetoneighborhoodresidents."
Page14Ͳ15:Design:
Ͳ"PRESERVEandprotectthevillagecharacter"
Page 471
Ͳ"promoteneighborhoodidentity...thatREINFORCEStheEXISTINGlandscapingandcharacterofthearea."
Allthroughoutthebrochure,ittalksaboutPRESERVINGEXISTINGagriculture,theflavor,heritage&cultureofthe
area.Eachandeveryoneoftheexcerptslistedabovewillbegrosslyandincompetentlyignorediftherezoningof6844
S.27thAvenue(Ref:ZͲ77Ͳ22Ͳ8)isapproved.
IwasraisedinsouthPhoenixandamacurrent&longͲtimeresident(15years)oftheLaveenVillagePUDthatbuttsupto
thewesternedgeoftheparcelinquestion.MyhomeisonlyafewhundredfeetfromthepropertylineinquestionandI
amEXTREMELY,WHOLEHEATEDLY,&ADAMANTLYopposedtotherezoningofthisparcel.
Ihaveseenwhatthecityplanningcommittee&responsiblepartieshavealloweddeveloperstodotomanyofthese
smallerparcelsnearmycommunity.OurbeautifulLaveen"agricultureandfarmingheritageandculture"areunder
attack.I'mheartbrokenthatsomanyofthesepricelesspiecesofourLaveenculture&heritagearebeingsystematically
erased!!
ThesesmallerparcelsofS1Ͳzonedlandarebeautifulanddisappearingatanincrediblerate.We,asacommunity,have
anobligationandadutytoPRESERVEthesepreciousparcelsͲasstatedaboveintheexcerptsfromthecharacterplan
itselfͲnotcowtowtothelawyersofdeveloperswhowanttoseesardineͲcannedhomesstuffedtothebrimonany
parceltheycangettheirhandson.
Thereissomethingtobesaidforlisteningtotheresidentsoftheareaandthereissomuchoppositiontothisrezoning
thatIcannotfathomthatthecommitteewoulddoanythingbutstopitinitstracks.
However,ifthisrhetoricisn'tsufficient,letmefurtheroutlinemultiplepointsastowhythisrezoninggoesagainstthe
verymissionofhowLaveenvillageisintendedtobedeveloped.
1.PRESERVE&PROTECTtheEXISTINGflavor&cultureofthearea:
Again,I'velivedinthiscommunityfor15yearsandmychildrenhavegrownupwalkingthetrailsofourcommunity
seeingrabbits,squirrels,coyotesandbirds,alongwiththefarmanimalsofthenearbySMALLFARM/AGRICULTURAL
properties,includinghorses,cows,goats,sheep,&donkeys.Theylovetofeedthemcarrotsandpetthembythe
fence.Theyarepreciousandentertaining.Notonlythat,butthe15yearoldmesquitetreesthatlinetheentireedgeof
thefencelineprovideswonderfulamountsofshadeinthescorchingsummerheat.It'snotonlyfunctionalinthat
capacity,butalsobeautifulandNATURALͲagain,somethingtobePRESERVED&PROTECTED.
Thisistheexistingflavorofourareaandit'slovelyandwonderful.Iwouldloveforthecouncilandtheplanning
committeetodorightbythisareaandkeepourflavorintact.Iwanttobeabletotakemygrandchildrentoseethese
farmsandanimalsinthefuture,butifyouallowthisparceltoberezoned,youwillbefurtherdestroyingthenatural
beautyofthisarea.
IhavealwaysviewedSouth27thavenueasanagriculturalandfarmingarea,becauseITISone,ALWAYShasbeen,butit
won'tcontinuetobeifwecontinuetoeliminatetheseS1zonedparcels.
2."Provideefficientemergencyservicetoneighborhoodresidents."
Ifthisrezoningisapprovedandthecurrenttentativeplanprovidediscompleted,thereisalmostnocapacityforfire
trucksandemergencyvehiclestoadequatelyaccesshomesifthereareanycarsparkedonthestreet.Thisisnotthe
mindfuldevelopmentthatLaveenneeds.Thisisanoverdevelopmentofasmallparcelthatispoorlydesignedand
inadequate.
3."EstablishanAPPROPRIATEandBALANCEDhousingmixthatalsoencouragesdevelopmentthatPROTECTSEXISTING
residentialLIFESTYLESandnaturalresources"
Page 472
ThecurrentproposeddevelopmentplanwillNOTprovideanappropriateorbalancedhousingmix,basedonthecurrent
makeͲupofthesurroundinghomes.DirectlytothenorthareseveralS1zonedproperties...TothesouthistheHarvest
Grovescommunitythatonlyhas10homesonsimilaracreageasthe6844S.27thAveparcel.TheLaveenVillage
communityhasamuchlowerdensitythantheproposal.ThelotsizesappeartobeextremelysmallandIhaveconcerns
thattoomanyhomesinthesmallspacewillhaveadetrimentaleffectonpropertyvaluesnearby.
Additionally,myneighborsandIalsobelievetherewillbeadetrimentaleffecttothetrafficalong27thavenue.
MydaughterattendsSunValleyAcademyonthecornerofBaselineRd&27thAveandthereare2otherschoolsalong
27thbetweenBaselineandSouthern.Thereisalreadyasignificantamountoftrafficflowingthrough27thandsafetyis
aforemostconcern.
4.OnemorethingIwouldliketoaddressismypersonalexperiencewiththenewhomedevelopmentsthathavebeen
builtalong27thavenueinrecentyears.Asmentionedpreviously,IhavewalkedmydogsaroundmycommunityEVERY
DAYfor3yearsandtherearemoreandmoreresidentsfromthegatedcommunitiesalong27thavenuethatarecoming
intoourcommunitytouseourwalkingpathsandasanaccesstothecityparklocatedonVineyard,etc.Ihaveseen
more&morebulktrashdumping,litteringanddogfecesallaroundthesectionofmyneighborhoodthatisclosestto
thenewdevelopments.Ihavepersonallyseenthemcomefromgatedcommunitiesintoouropenareastoutilizeour
amenities,becausethedevelopersdidnotappropriatelyplanforopenandsharedspacesforthenumberofresidentsin
thenewgatedcommunitiesthatshouldhaveremainedzonedS1orsimilarinthefirstplace.Thismaynotbeseenasa
"significant"issueorreasontovoteNOontherezoning,butyoumustunderstandthatit'stheLaveenVillageHOAthat
maintainsthesepathsandcommonareas,greenbelts,etc.IftheyhavetoincreasetheHOAfeestobeabletoproperly
maintainourcommonareas,HUNDREDSofresidentswillbeimpactedbyyourdecisiontorezonetheseparcels,
imposinganunfairadditionalfinancialburdentomanyfamiliesintheseverytougheconomictimes.
RezoningtoanythingotherthanS1istrulyinappropriateforTHISparcel.Therearesomanyothervacantparcelsalong
35thAvethataremoreappropriateforthistypeofdevelopment.Weneedtounderstandasacommunitywhat
"mindfuldevelopment"lookslikeandsticktoourvaluesasaruralandagriculturalcommunitytocontinuetoholdtrue
totheCharacterPlanreferencedinthebeginningofthisletter.Wehaveanobligationtostayvigilantandattentiveto
thecorevalues,historyandheritageofLaveenVillage.Iamvehementlycertainthatifthisrezoningisapproved,itwill
beadetrimenttoOURlocalcommunityformyriadreasonsthatIdon'tevenhavethetimetofullyexplainandexplorein
thissingleletter.
IamhopefulthatIamthoroughandthoughtfulinmyarticulationofallthereasonswhytherezoningof6844S.27th
Ave(Ref:ZͲ77Ͳ22Ͳ8)isNOTinthebestinterestofLaveenorthecurrent&futureresidentsintheimmediate
surroundingareas.
Proposal:IstronglyopposetheapplicationandseektohavethisreͲevaluatedandkeptatthecurrentzoning,S1,based
onalltestimonysubmittedabove.
Yourtimeandattentiontothismatteraregreatlyappreciated.Iamhopefulandoptimisticthatyouandyourfellow
decisionͲmakerswillbeabletounderstandthefullimpactofthisdecisionandnottakeitlightly.Ipraythatyouwillnot
onlyhear,buttrulylistentotheresidentsofthisareaanddowhatistrulyinallofourbestinterestandstandupforusͲ
thepeopleyouworkforandrepresentͲaswellasfortheheritageofLaveenandvoteresponsibly&withintegrityNO
onthisissue
Sincerely,
StephanieHoffman
2909W.MaldonadoRd.
Phoenix,AZ85041
Cell:602Ͳ920Ͳ5708
Email:stephaniehoffman76@yahoo.com
Page 473
P.S.Pleasenote,wealsohaveasignedpetitionwithmultiplesignaturesshowingadditionalcommunityoppositionto
therezoningthatwewillsubmitduringthecouncilplanningmeetingscheduledfortomorrow,MondaySeptember11th
2023at6:30p.m.attheLaveeneducationcenter.
Page 474
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Araceli De los Monteros
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:40 AM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD Laveen VPC; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Objection to Rezoning at 6844 S 27th Ave
Attachments: CHAOS PROJECT.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Towhomitmayconcern,
I'mwritingtostronglyopposedtotherezoningatthepropertylocatedin6844South27thAvenue,Phoenix,AZ85041.I
livein2806WHarvestGrovesLn,Phoenix,AZ85041justimmediatelysouthofthepropertymentioned.
Thefactthattheywanttobuild33housesandhavinga2Ͳwayroadon27thAveexactlyintheirexit,willincrease
possiblecollisions.Doingatemplateofthemap(attachedinthisemail)youcanseemorethan30carscominginand
outofthedevelopment.Butifweput2carsperhouse,andweaddparentstakingtheirkidstothe3SCHOOLSinthe
sameavenueandadditionallytotheneighborslivingintheareawillcauseaproblematicsituation.
TheBernandBlackElementaryschoolshave531studentsaprox.
TheSunValleyAcademyhas544studentsmax.
TheChristianHighSchoolaround200students.
Manyofthemtakethebustoschool,manyofthemwalkandmanyofthemaretakingbycar.
Otherfacttotakeintoconsiderationisthedensityofthedevelopmentandconcernsaboutemergencies.
AFiretruckisaprox471/2Feetlong,121/2Hightall,100incheswideandEngine:33Feetlong,111/2HighTall,100
Incheswide(whichyoucanalsoseeinthemap).Thattogetherwithcarsinthestreet,trashcansandpeopleit'sjustnot
feasible.
Pleasehelpustorejecttherezoningrequest.Thankyou.
AraceliEspinosadelosMonteros
(480)721Ͳ2555
Page 475
Page 476
&*#(@@5A?AB
63%$$&&"+%$:FF:AA:G7A -(7
% 2"$3 .$$* /$"" "$$$%##-5
))#2)%$"-((($*)))#2()*"-(0))$*%$."2H5A?AB$*()
$ )%# )"* $)7 2 $# ) 0( "2 $ %0$ B ()$+" &(%&(+) $ @
%##("&(%&(*2"%$AF/$.*0$)"$%$%.*($/$.'.+$*%
&&(%1#*"2E()%"$70%%#2&(%&(+)5*%##("&(%&(*2;F?@?%.*AF
/$.<$%$%*()$+"&(%&(+);EGCG%.*AF/$.<((*"2 $**%*
"$**)('.)+$*%(3%$7
#0(+$*%1&())#2 *%*$)*2%(3%$$&&"+%$:FF:AA:G7
)&(").(($*"23%$@0""%0)@0""$&((7&(")F7G()""%0$
%(*/"%&(*%."F%#)7/"%&())!$*%."BB%#)50)C7F+#)
#%(*$0*)""%07 2('.)*)(.$*$.#(%%#)*%B+#)0*).(($*"2
""%000%."#1#.#%A@%#)7"/*))/(2(%#&(%#)*%*
/"%&( $ %##.$*2 ) *) 0%." )+"" #%( $ * /"%&() /%(7 "%0 ( #2
()%$$)%(('.)+$"%0($)*26
@7 2$%()$&.()%.(&(%&(+).)%*(#9((*(7(
"%)$*)(*(7/"%&(%)$8*"/$%.(%##.$*2$*2(0$+$*%
.")#$2%#))&%))"%(*($*$"/7
A7 )&(")"%*0**)%$"2$*($%$+*"2*0$*0%()$+"&(%&(+)7
)0""$+/"2#&*%*.(($*%#).$$()$*($%)7
B7 %0$$.**(%/5%$%**%&&(/*0$/$.)$""%(3%$7/
$$.)$))%(%/(@C2()7"%/*)&(%&(*2)*)*)%$"#%)*B()$)
).((%.$2%*((&(%&(+)7*$)(&(% *(*"2 $**%.)*)
%$*%$()%.($)%%#&"$*)7%&*/"%&(.))'."*2#*(")
$)."+%$0""#&%(*$*0*%#)$*)"%)7
C7 ))%$02$$%$02%.*%##.$*27()$8*$%.(%%#%(()*%&(!
%$%*))%*)*(*$)+""/$%.)&%(%*(()*%(/27.*.(
%#%0$()0""/*($)$*()$%%*(&"%(*#*%&(!.*%)#""
"%*)7 ( 0"" *( *( #) %( &(!$ ) %$ *% %0 %.*) % * *
%##.$*2$%*(&(%&(+)7
D7 ()$8*$%.(%%#%((&(*#$*5(*(.!)5"/(2*(.!)*%#$./($
).+*)&)0**)*(*$)$((%0)*)7#$()&(!%$*(%
$*)"((/")*(2$*%**(%.*)$7
Page 477
$.#(%%#)%(*)3%&(")*%%7)0%."$(*.&(%"#**
$/%$%07$5('.)****$)*2(.*%#1#.#%A@%#)7)
0"" ""%0 * /"%&( *% 0$ * "%*) *% ""%0 #%( &(!$ *.) (.$ * $.#( %
/")%$*)*(*7*0""(.*$%)*%**0%&(%&(*2%0$()$(.*$)
%#."+&"%#&"$*)(%#*0$/$.$1*%%(7*0""""%0*/"%&(*%."B
+#)0*).(($*"23%$%(*#*%)+""$(*(&(%*7
$!2%.%(2%.(+#5
0( "25 0$(
$.**(%/
F?@?%.*AF/$.
%$15GD?C@
E?A:FHH:HGDH
Page 478
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
From: Ravi Arora
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD Laveen VPC; Racelle Escolar; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Cc: Araceli De los Monteros
Subject: Objection to Rezoning at 6844 S. 27th Ave
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Towhomitmayconcern,
Wearewritingtoexpressouroppositiontotherezoningofthepropertylocatedat6844South27thAvenueinPhoenix
Arizona.Iwasona2806WestHarvestGrovesLane,Phoenix,Arizona85041.Thisisintheneighborhoodimmediately
southofthepropertyinquestion.
Thecurrentplanproposedbythedeveloperisproblematic,dangerous,andwilllikelylowernearbypropertyvalues.
Theyaretryingtofit34houseson7.6acres,withasingledeadendonelaneroadprovidingaccesstoallofthehomes.
Theysimplydon'thavesufficientspaceforthecommunitytheyareproposing.
Theproposedhomesaresmallandtightlypacked.Theproximitytooneanotheralonecreatesafirehazard.
Furthermore,theproposedstreetcannotaccommodateanyonͲstreetparkingandleavesufficientroomforfireand
garbagetruckstomaneuverthroughtheneighborhoodifnecessary.Theyhaveindicatedthattheywillbanstreet
parkingbuttheyhavenoplanonhowtoenforcethis,soitwillinevitablyhappen.
Thisnewdevelopmentwillalsogreatlyincreasetheflowoftrafficon27thAvenuewhichisalreadystartingtobecome
congested.Wewillalsohavetodealwithincreasednoiseandothernuisancesfromtheoverpackedcommunitythatwill
beimmediatelynorthofoursiftheydevelopthepropertyasplanned.
Weareaskingthatyourejecttherezoningrequestthathasbeensubmittedforthispropertyanddemandthatthe
developersubmitanewplanwithsignificantlylowerdensity.Wearenotopposedtoadevelopmentwithupto20
houses(singlestorysoastonotblockourviewofdowntown).Thatisdoublewhatwehaveinourneighborhoodwhich
isonthesamesizeproperty.Wethinkthatisareasonablecompromise.
Sincerely,
RavindarAroraandAraceliDeLosMonteros
Page 479
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Opposition to Z-77-22-8
Attachments: Zoning case Z-77-22.docx
From:TeresaDickinson
Sent:Monday,September11,20237:14AM
To:NayeliSanchezLuna
Escolar
Subject:OppositiontoZͲ77Ͳ22Ͳ8
To Nayeli Sanchez Luna and the Laveen Village Planning Committee,
I have lived at 7426 S 27th Ave for 6 years. I moved here from Central Phoenix, missing the Central
Phoenix vibe but looking for land. I am also one of the owners of the Mesquite Meadows
neighborhood/project Northwest of 27th Ave and Baseline. I am investing in the neighborhood, trying
to create the neighborhood I want to live in. Our project is on 7.5 acres and consists of 16
homes. Most of the properties will be 1/3 acre lots. South Phoenix has all the makings of a great
area; Beautiful mountain views, nearby wonderful hiking trails, and close commuting distance to
downtown and the airport.
I am writing to express my strongobjectionof rezoning application Z-77-22 due to its high-density, the
small street and two-lane entrance/exit onto 27th Ave. Laveen, Phoenix, and developers need to stop
cramming in as much homes as possible. Developers need to start building quality neighborhoods
and quit exploiting them. There should be no more that 2-3 homes per acre on this project. Homes
should be at least 10 feet from each side property line. It is disturbing to see projects passed that
have 5 foot setbacks from the side of the property lines. This is a fire hazard and is
unnecessary. Also, who wants to hear neighbors cough, etc. Let’s create nice quality
neighborhoods.
Regarding the two-lane entrance/exit, there needs to be a left turn lane and right turn lane exiting the
property. There should not be a back up of residents trying to leave the property waiting for a left
turning resident. Traffic is quite significant on 27th Ave and it is likely that residents turning north will
have to wait to turn safely. We do not need to unduly stress residents from the line building up
behind them while they wait to turn north, possibly encouraging them to turn when it is not safe.
Idoalsofeelthattheroadwidthistoosmall.Thedevelopersshouldhavetohaveawiderroad,evenifit
meanstheyneedtobuildlesshomesontheprojecttomakeithappen.Residentsshouldbeallowedtohave
streetparkingwhichwouldrequireawiderroad.Theonlyreasonforthesmallerroadistoincreasetheir
profitability,attheexpenseoftheresidents.Afirefighterhastoldusthatwiththeroadthissmall,the
firetruckswillhitsideviewmirrors,increasingtheCity’sliability.Let’snotcreatetheproblem,allforprofit.
Buildinglesscongestedneighborhoodswillencouragehappierresidents,whileenhancingtheareaand
propertyvalues.Weallknowhowimportantitistohavehappyresidents.Let’sbuilditrightfromthe
start.Let’sbuildacommunitythatLaveenwouldbeproudof.
Thankyouforyourtime,
Teresa Dickinson
Concerned local resident
Page 480
(#&A3?=?@
4(!:>B6':6DD6??6E
& """#!!''#"3
!.&)"(#/$&''!0 (#(&"'(0&%,'(#$$ )#"6DD6??6E5
0"!'.& 0"!(#."&#",((-7D=>= #,(?D-",5
&&( 0"((#($$#'$(5
",((-'! 06#.",'"''((!0."'(&(>A0&'#5-, (
('."-","(##"#(!#'('#,(#,(."-",'"(- 05#'(#-&>==
."'0&#&$#$ #-&(- 0"#(&'(('5&"#."#&#,&#$"'$'3
&! (!#'$&3",), (&'((!0#, 0#,'$((05 #. 0.-
'"&! "#,(0- #$&'"'(,.('!"0#!''$#'' 5
0#"&".(('"'(0'#.(. (( #"-(0##,&,'"''5(&"'(0
.. -&$ (0#$#$ #!$ "".".--"('5. '#-
$ (0 # $#$ ! (( #!!,"(0 ,'" #,& $&" #( , (# ( '! #( '1' " "#(
',"('(&($&"#&(&$&'#" -"('5"#.('(#(&,,'($$"",!,'
)!'.(#"##,&"#&'$&#&(#!$,&'"(($$&(05
'#3','"''."&(#-&9>B=3===0&"' '"$$&(0(/#&((05!$ #0
>?, 6)!!$ #0'"@=$&(6)!!$ #0'5#&, )!"('.(! 3"( 3
3A=>#!$"0!(3"$('&"5#,&' '$,(#&"'(0"#(#" 0. (
(0(,(($#$ .#.!$ #0'. 5
- #$&".(0$,&'('$$&(01#"#&>. "$&&"."((#((
"(#&1#"#&&"'(05,"&'(""""-( 3!&%,')"(&
#!$!'(# #.(- #$&(#"&"'(0("#&" 0$,&'" "(#
("#&'.#!,'( -.((#,(#!#"06(#60''5 0&%,'('(#$$-" >6
>E.(#",'(# #.(- #$&(#, !#&("?/.(',&&"( 0 #.5
#+#! "(",!&##!'$$#'#&('1#$& '(##5'. -")-
&$$ ( #.5
"0#,#&0#,&)!3
.& 03 ."&
",((-
D=>= #,(?D-",
#"/3EB=A>
C=?6DFF6FEBF
Page 481
Racelle Escolar
From: Bridget Daley
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 12:47 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Linda Abegg; Council District 8 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Nayeli Sanchez Luna; PDD
Planning Commission
Subject: Z-77-22-8 Objection Letter from Community
Attachments: 10.5 Commission Meeting for Laveen Ranch.pdf
HelloAll,
Onbehalfofthecommunityofneighborsobjectingtocase#15attomorrow'sPlanningCommissionmeeting,Iwanted
tosummarizeourconcernsandobjectionsinoneplace.Wehavedozensofoppositionlettersandover50signatures
opposingtherezoninghoweverwehavecometogetherinunityofwhatourobjectionsaretomakeiteasiertoseeour
sideofthis.WewentintothisprocessattemptingtokeepthezoningatSͲ1,whichiswhatmostofthepropertiesto
theNorthandSouthofthislandarecurrentlyzonedfor,butwehavecompromisedinourapproachandrecommending
R1Ͳ18tolimitthezoningto15homesonthese7.8acres.
Thankyoufortheconsiderationoftheoutpouringofcommunityconcernonthisproject.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,
pleasedon'thesitatetoreachouttomedirectly.Wehavefourspeakerstomorrowforthehearingthatareimmediate
neighborsaswellaspotentialothercommunitymembersthatsignedup.Welookforwardtotheconversation.
Sincerely,
BridgetDaley
(Neighborat6828S27thAvetoimmediatenorthofproperty)
925Ͳ321Ͳ9720
Page 482
10.5 Phoenix Planning
Commission Meeting
Community concerns & opposition
Z-77-22-8
Bridget Daley
Page 483
Farmland in Maricopa is being lost at a
higher rate than anywhere else in the
United States¹ Arizona is Maricopa
County is losing
projected to lose
farmland the
Current Property with S-1 Zoning the most
fastest of any
farmland
state in the
nation
Proposed Property with R1-8 Zoning
Current Property
Sources: 1) American Farmland Trust “Farms Under Threat 2040” report
Submitted in plans from Equity Holdings
Page 484
Full view of surrounding properties: S-1 and Maricopa County’s
R43 which is similar with abundant agricultural space
Unified Neighborhood Opposition Letter to Z-77-22-8
On behalf of all neighbors with adjoining property to the north and south of the property at
6844 S 27th Ave, we strongly oppose this rezoning and in unity express our opposition.
There were over a dozen opposition letters to this rezoning and petition with over 50
signatures to stop it. As a community we went to the Laveen Planning Committee with our
joint recommendation to keep zoning as S-1 in order to preserve the agricultural integrity of
the land and maintain the character of the surrounding areas as you see from page 3. This
would still have the ability for the developer to create 8 larger ranch style homes.
However, after speaking with numerous members of the committee and the developer, we
understand that given the current housing crisis in Phoenix, the need for housing extends
beyond that. It is with that in mind, we are all recommending no more than R1-18 zoning to
keep the lot to 15 homes (18 with bonus), which would still uphold some of the character of
the area and appease some of our concerns. We have thousands of multi family and high
density/cluster communities coming to Laveen currently. 15 , more expensive ranch style
homes would uphold the integrity of this area and still provide alternative housing needs
met that diversify this area to enhance the overall area with higher value properties. Thank
you for the consideration of the outpouring of community concern on this project.
Community Concerns & Opposition to Rezoning to R1-8:
• Density: The 27-33 single family residences proposed on 7.8 acres is out of reason for the
surrounding area. The rezoning ordinance if granted creates density much higher than
the existing residential Ranch property and ranch uses immediately to the north and
south of the lot. All surrounding homes on 27th Ave are larger lots that preserve the rich
agriculture history of this area.
• Traffic & Noise: The Daley family to the North would share a wall with 16 homes in the
proposed plan with Harvest Grove to the South and two, one acre residences with the
remaining homes. There is a 250-foot stretch of roadway that is sandwiched between
two residential homes that will need to be driven through before even getting into the
proposed community of homes. Bedrooms are adjacent to this road and with 72
vehicles entering and exiting everyday, this is a large increase in traffic noise &
disturbance. Harvest Grove and 6828 would share a wall with some two story and single
story homes all bringing noise and traffic into our land and homes. We all moved to the
Laveen area and this specific stretch of agriculturally rich homes to be away from noise,
raise animals, live on land, etc. This is a completely disturbance to our current way of life
and what the property was originally intended for and Laveen designed for.
• Fire & Police Support: 27-33 homes in close proximity to one another and surrounded
by agricultural land could create a dangerous situation for all in the area. Our fire and
police staffing in District 8 is already compromised with the new developments in our
area and this will put immense stress on our resources to help people in need. Phoenix
Fire Department is 44% below response time goal and response times for EMS is 83%
lower than goal. The narrow one way in and out also presents issues for emergency
vehicles and when damage is done to vehicles parked on the street, it is the tax payer’s
dollars that must pay for that.
• Builder Experience: The builder has not had experience with a build such as this. There
is no track record of a community of homes not turned into rentals that are not high
density units or just flipped rental properties.
• Devalue Land: For all reasons discussed, this is not a positive improvement or benefit to
any of our homes along 27th Ave and would devalue our properties for perpetuity. We
have thousands of multi family homes being developed in Laveeen – please keep our
stretch of ag homes true to the intended use of these properties.
Page 485
Community Asks:
We have relented on continuing to fight to keep zoning at S-1 as mentioned and as part of
our request to rezone to no more than R1-8 with 15 homes built, these are the community
requests we collectively agree on:
Community Requests in Rezoning:
• R1-18 Rezoning: At most allow for 15 homes to be build on these 7.8 acres of land.
• This will lessen danger of fire that could spark onto our agricultural land to the
north and south
• Decrease amount of traffic and noise from the proposed 27-33 homes
• Ensure this development does not turn into rental properties but rather families
building their life in our community
• With over 1000 multi-family homes going up in the surrounding area, this allows
for diversity and higher value homes that would elevate, not devalue the
surrounding properties.
• One story homes: To alleviate some of the noise and visual disturbance to
neighbors, only allowing for one story, ranch style homes to be built.
• Adding ample buffer & landscaping: The two homes at the entrance of the Laveen
Ranch gate will get headlights, noise and traffic consistently coming through. We ask
that you protect their homes as much as possible by mandating tall hedging in addition
to a 6 foot block wall. The same goes for the Daley Family and Harvest Groves to the
north and south. A 6 foot buffer and some trees will not completely blockade the homes
in both view and noise – adding a solid hedge would help with this.
• Environmental Survey: The 7.8 acres of land have for decades been utilized in
agriculture and home to hawk nests, coyote dens and a plethora of animals. These
animals will be displaced or killed with the build, so we request an environmental survey
by third parties to make recommendations and help rehome these animals. Southwest
Wildlife is one such organization that protects mammals and offers recommendations.
• Evaluate Impact on Schools & Traffic: The traffic report was done during summer
break and we have four schools in close vicinity of this development off of 27th Ave -
Bernard Black, Elementary, Arizona Lutheran Academy, Sunrise Preschool and Sun
Valley Academy. The congestion is already growing with the new housing built in this
area and we’d look to the Commission and Council to determine if the impact of this
new development should require any further steps such as lowered speed limit along
27th Ave.
Page 486
Steeped in natural beauty and agricultural
heritage, Laveen Village has been long
valued by farmers, equestrians, and those
looking for solitude or easy mountain access.
Laveen and our community here on 27th Ave between
Southern and Baseline is deeply rooted in agriculture.
A pillar to the planning and development in this area is
preservation. We ask that you consider the unique
aspects of this particular piece of land and surrounding
homes, and preserve these residential homes to be
ranch style homes to blend in with surrounding area
and lessen the impact the established neighbors will
feel from this development.
Page 487
Racelle Escolar
From: mcarroll8@q.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Z-77-22-8
Thisparceloflandshouldnotberezonedtoprovidefor33Ͳ38homes.Wehavemanyhomesinourareathatarebeing
builtrightontopofeachothersotospeak.Theexistingzoningallowsfor8homeswhichisreasonable.Don'tforget,
thereisaparceloflandtothesouthofthisparcelthathasbeenrezonedjustrecentlyallowingfor16morehomes.
Thefamilytothenorthofthisparcelisbuildingaranchontheirparcelofland.Thisrezoningwouldof33Ͳ38homes
wouldbetoomuchforthem,homesbeingtoocloseandtootall.
Please,donotallowrezoning,8homeswouldbemoreappropriateforthisparcel.
MaryCarroll
7304S29thLn
Page 488
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
SEPT. 6, 2023) - Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption -
Parking Reductions for Multifamily Developments - Z-TA-8-23-Y (Ordinance G-
7161)
Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable housing,
passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking space,
unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate
Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and
Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily,
single-family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger
loading zones.
Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily developments. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with
new definitions provided as necessary; “passenger loading space” and “passenger
loading zone” has been added for use with the Walkable Urban code, together with
proposed development standards; and parking requirements have been reduced for
multifamily developments as detailed in the Staff Report (Attachment B).
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
VPC Info: Eleven of the 15 Village Planning Committees (VPCs) heard this item for
information only throughout June, as reflected in Attachments C and D.
VPC Action: Fourteen VPCs considered the request. Four VPCs recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation; two VPCs recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation, with modifications; and nine VPCs recommended denial, as
reflected in Attachments C and E.
Page 489
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 1, 2023, for information
only (Attachment F).
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation (in the Staff Report) with
modifications, by a vote of 6-2, as reflected in Attachment G.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 490
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 2, SECTION 202 (DEFINITIONS) TO ADD DEFINITIONS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PASSENGER LOADING SPACE,
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE, AND REVISE PARKING SPACE,
UNRESERVED; AMEND CHAPTER 6, SECTION 608.J (DENSITY
BONUS FOR LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING); AMEND
CHAPTER 7, SECTIONS 702.C (PARKING REQUIREMENTS) AND
SECTION 702.E (MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING
REQUIREMENTS); AND AMEND CHAPTER 13, SECTION 1307
(PARKING STANDARDS) TO MODIFY THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND ADD
REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES OF THE
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PARKING
STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to read as
follows:
***
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.
***
-1- Ordinance ________
Page 491
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.
***
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.
***
SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate
Income Housing), is amended to read as follows:
J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.
-2- Ordinance ________
Page 492
1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.
2. Density bonus.
a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.
b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.
3. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.
SECTION 3: That Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking
Requirements), is amended to read as follows:
***
E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.
***
3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:
a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)
-3- Ordinance ________
Page 493
b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)
***
9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.
(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.
(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.
***
c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):
***
SECTION 4: That Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Walkable Urban Code, Parking
Standards), is amended to read as follows:king Standards
-4- Ordinance ________
Page 494
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.
***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.
1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:
a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.
b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.
c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.
d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.
***
Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories
Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED
(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in
Residential: Single-Family a direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for
the patrons of the subject parcel.
-5- Ordinance ________
Page 495
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
FAMILY ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.
0.65
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
PER UNIT N/A
FAMILY (2) REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.
***
Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5
***
***
D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.
1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:
***
E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.
1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.
***
-6- Ordinance ________
Page 496
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.
1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)
CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2
HOSPITAL 3
HOTEL OR MOTEL 3
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)
ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)
(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.
(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES
SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT
THE FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A
DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF OFFICE SPACE, PLUS
125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES
(70,000 SF / 50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100
DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR 3 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.
2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.
-7- Ordinance ________
Page 497
A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.
(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.
(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.
(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.
(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.
(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.
(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.
(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.
-8- Ordinance ________
Page 498
DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.
(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.
(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.
-9- Ordinance ________
Page 499
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.
(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.
(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.
(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.
(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:
(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).
-10- Ordinance ________
Page 500
(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.
(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.
C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.
(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.
(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.
***
-11- Ordinance ________
Page 501
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September, 2023
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
-12- Ordinance ________
Page 502
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
Application No Z-TA-8-23-Y: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus
For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking
Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend
Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for
multifamily, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for
passenger loading zones.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
In 2020, City Council unanimously approved the Housing Phoenix Plan to create a
stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for residents at
all income levels and family sizes. The Plan’s primary goal is to create or preserve
50,000 homes by 2030, and increase overall supply of market, workforce, and
affordable housing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix. In order to implement
this goal, nine policy initiatives were identified. Policy Initiative 5 is “Building Innovations
and Cost Saving Practices”. These proposed changes would address concerns that
existing parking requirements are more than necessary, and contribute to the increasing
costs of development, and in turn, increasing housing costs.
PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to reduce parking requirements for multi-
family developments. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with new
definitions provided as necessary; “passenger loading space” and “passenger loading
zone” has been added for use with the Walkable Urban code, together with proposed
development standards; and parking requirements have been reduced for multi-family
developments as further detailed below.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment primarily reduces parking requirement for multi-family
development, but in varying degrees based primarily upon location and/or if the housing
qualifies as “affordable” per definitions used by HUD and the City’s Housing
Department. It also introduces a requirement for multi-family developments zoned WU
Code for Passenger Loading Zones, to provide staging zones for rideshare, food
deliveries, and personal package deliveries.
Page 503
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
1. City-wide multi-family parking requirements:
The proposed text modifies the standard multi-family parking requirement to more
closely match parking demand identified for multi-family housing as published in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is
identified at 1.21 spaces per dwelling unit, for low rise (up to 2-story) development
not located near rail transit, in a general urban/suburban area. The proposed City-
wide standard requirement is proposed to be 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, with
30% of parking to remain unreserved (not assigned for a particular unit or person).
Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 125 spaces, of which 38 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.
*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers
2. City-wide affordable housing parking reduction:
The proposed text modifies an existing provision in the zoning ordinance which
provides a density bonus for affordable housing, to add a parking reduction for
affordable housing. The reduction is proposed to be 50%, or 0.625 spaces per
dwelling unit. This is supported by the demand identified for affordable housing as
published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is identified at 0.53
spaces per dwelling unit, for affordable (income-limited) developments in a dense
multi-use urban area.
Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 63 spaces, of which 19 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.
*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers
3. Infill Development District (IDD) parking reductions:
The same reduction proposed for City-wide affordable housing is also proposed for
multi-family development within the Infill Development District (IDD). The reduction is
proposed to be 50%, or 0.625 spaces per dwelling unit. This is supported by the
demand identified for affordable housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition,
2019. The demand is identified at 0.58 spaces per dwelling unit, for low-rise
developments in a dense multi-use urban area located within ½ mile of rail transit.
Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 63 spaces, of which 19 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.
*only reduction currently available is to be able to count adjacent on-street parking.
Page 504
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
Non-Residential Reduction
A smaller reduction of 20% is also proposed for non-residential development, since
the reduction was written in such a way to remove the existing “reduction” of
allowing on-street parking spaces to count toward parking requirements. The on-
street parking has conflicted with some proposed bike lanes. This proposed 20%
reduction should meet or exceed the typical amount of on-street parking which could
be counted toward on-site parking requirements.
4. Walkable Urban (WU) Code parking requirements:
The proposed text modifies the existing standard multi-family housing parking
requirements to more closely match parking demand identified for dense multi-family
housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is identified
at 0.71 spaces per dwelling unit, for mid-rise (3-10 story) developments in a dense
multi-use urban area, within ½ mile of rail transit. The proposed multi-family parking
requirement for development zoned WU Code is proposed to change from a 25%
reduction from City-wide standards, to 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit, with 30% of
parking to remain unreserved (not assigned for a particular unit or person).
Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 50 spaces, of which 15 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 113 spaces*, of which 38 must be unreserved.
*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers.
5. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements:
The proposed text modifies the existing affordable multi-family housing parking
requirements to more closely match parking demand identified for dense affordable
multi-family housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand
is identified at 0.53 spaces per dwelling unit, for affordable (income-limited)
developments in a dense multi-use urban area. The proposed affordable multi-family
housing parking requirement for development zoned WU Code is proposed to
change from a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit to 0 spaces (no minimum required).
Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 0 spaces.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 50 spaces, with no unreserved requirement.
6. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code:
This text amendment also proposes a new requirement for passenger loading
spaces/zones, which are pull-out areas for short-term waiting for rideshare vehicles,
meal delivery vehicles, and package delivery vehicles (but not commercial docks or
loading areas). Such services are frequently used by persons living in denser
central urban environments to supplement transit and bicycle transportation. Such
areas should be located on-site but may be located off-street if they do not reduce
required landscaping and pedestrian amenities, and if approved by Street
Page 505
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
Transportation. The proposed rates are adapted from standards adopted by the
Town of Eloy, AZ and Chandler, AZ, with development standards provided in
accordance with federal requirements:
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)
CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2
HOSPITAL 3
HOTEL OR MOTEL 3
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES (1)
Conclusion:
The proposed changes to parking requirements, generally to reduce parking minimums
for transit-oriented, multi-family, and affordable development, is supported by demand
studies in the ITE Parking Generation Manual. The requirement for passenger loading
zones in WU Code is to support the use of ancillary transportation services often used
by persons utilizing transit or bicycle as a primary means of transportation.
Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Attachment A.
Writer
C. DePerro
6/30/2023
Attachments
A. Proposed Language
Page 506
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Parking Reductions for Multifamily and Affordable Housing
Proposed Language:
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking
space, unreserved, as follows:
***
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.
***
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.
***
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.
Page 507
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.
***
Section 608. Residence Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:
J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.
1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.
2. Density bonus.
a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.
b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.
3. PARKING REDUCTION.
A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.
Page 508
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING REDUCTION
AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS
BEEN GRANTED.
3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.
Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:
C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.
Type of Land Use Parking Requirements
***
Page 509
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
Type of Land Use Parking Requirements
Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of
less than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms
When the required parking is reserved for residents, additional
unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit and 1.0
space per each 3 or more bedroom unit.
Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot driveways
are provided for individual units, .25 space per each unit.
Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.
Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this section may be
counted toward the total required parking count.
1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.
Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit
Family Attached and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less
than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER SECTIONS 614-618
2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN ADDITIONAL 0.25
UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST PER
PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR
VISITOR PARKING.
***
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:
Page 510
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
***
E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.
***
3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:
a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)
b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)
***
F. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)
***
9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.
(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.
(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.
Page 511
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
***
c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):
***
Section 1307. Parking Standards
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:
Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
***
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.
***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.
1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:
a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.
b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.
c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.
d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.
***
Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking
Page 512
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories
Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED
(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in a
Residential: Single-Family direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for the
patrons of the subject parcel.
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.
0.5
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY (2) PER UNIT N/A
REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.
***
Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED
***
***
D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.
1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:
***
Page 513
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.
1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.
***
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.
1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)
CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2
HOSPITAL 3
HOTEL OR MOTEL 3
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)
ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)
(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.
(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.
2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.
Page 514
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.
(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.
(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.
(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.
(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.
(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.
(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.
(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.
Page 515
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.
(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.
(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.
Page 516
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.
(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.
(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.
(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.
(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:
(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).
Page 517
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023
(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.
(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.
C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.
(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.
(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.
***
Page 518
ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-8-23: Parking Reductions
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Only Recommendation
Village Recommendations Vote
Date Date
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 7/10/23 No Quorum N/A
Encanto 6/5/2023 7/10/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 12-1
Laveen 6/12/2023 7/10/23 Denial 8-0
Central City 6/12/2023 7/10/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 10-4
Camelback East 6/6/2023 7/11/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 14-1
Desert View 6/6/2023 7/11/23 Denial 9-0
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 7/11/23 Denial 3-2
South Mountain 6/13/2023 7/11/23 Denial 11-0
Maryvale 6/14/2023 7/12/23 Denial 7-2-1
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 7/13/23 Denial 5-4
North Gateway 6/8/2023 7/13/23 Denial 6-0
Estrella 6/20/2023 7/18/23 Denial 8-1
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction that staff and the city
North Mountain 6/21/2023 7/19/23 council to explore additional methods to 12-1-1
help with the production of affordable
housing
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 7/24/23 Denial 6-2
Alhambra 6/27/2023 7/25/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 9-6
Page 519
ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.
Mr. Soronson asked if there are parking reductions proposed adjacent to transit. Mr.
Zambrano responded that transit would be covered under the Infill Development District
and the Walkable Urban Code.
Chair Popovic asked what the current parking requirement is for multifamily. Mr.
Zambrano displayed the current requirement verbatim from the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Roy Wise asked about the intent of this text amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded
that current parking requirements are resulting in overparking. Mr. Wise stated that he
believes the text amendment is trying to force more people to use transit.
Ms. Balderrama asked how the proposed parking requirement was calculated. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the Traffic Services Division conducted a study that showed
the actual parking demand is less than what the current parking requirements are. Mr.
Zambrano added that part of the intent behind the text amendment is trying to
encourage more transit use and acknowledging that not everyone may own a private
vehicle and may rely on other modes of transportation.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 520
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio would apply to four-bedroom units as
well. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the previous requirement was
two parking spaces per three or more-bedroom unit.
Chair Popovic asked where the distance to a light rail station in the Walkable Urban
Code is measured from. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is measured from the lot line.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 521
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No quorum.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
No quorum.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 522
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee Member Rouse left during this item bringing quorum to eight.
Staff Presentation:
Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for a reduction in
parking for multifamily and affordable multifamily citywide. Ms. Sanchez Luna
summarized other parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the
proposed parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by noting
the proposed hearing dates for the text amendment.
Questions from the Committee:
Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if ADA parking would still be required. Ms. Gomes confirmed.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked prompted this text amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that the
text amendment has been in response to legislative and affordability movements. Ms.
Gomes noted that the city analyzed affordability and that is why there were standards
for infill development, the walkable urban code, and city wide. Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted
that it would allow for more units because of the reduction in parking. Ms. Gomes noted
that residents in affordable housing have less vehicles and that more units would drive
down rental costs. Ms. Gomes noted that these would be minimum parking standards.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted that Phoenix doesn’t have an efficient public transportation
system to support the parking reduction. Mr. Nasser-Taylor added that existing
multifamily developments do not have enough parking. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if a
study was conducted before presenting the new parking ratios. Ms. Gomes stated that
the city utilized ITE data that focuses on traffic counts in order to create the proposal.
Ms. Perrera asked what year the data was collected. Ms. Gomes stated that that
information could be provided at a later date.
Ms. Perrera noted that the parking reduction made sense in infill development if
amenities are in a walkable distance. Ms. Perrera noted that a citywide reduction was
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 523
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2
not feasible. Ms. Perrera added that Laveen did not have sufficient public transit. Ms.
Perrera noted that there should be a reduction in commercial parking rather than
multifamily parking. Ms. Perrera added that she had concerns on data utilized.
Ms. Rouse voiced her agreement and stated that parking would spill onto the street.
Ms. Rubio-Raffin agreed that the city doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure to
support the reduction. Ms. Rubio-Raffin noted that the City of Tempe has an efficient
public transit system. Ms. Rubio-Raffin added that the reduction could reduce the
number of cars.
Ms. Jensen stated that more public transportation infrastructure would be required
before a reduction could occur. Ms. Jensen asked how much overflow parking occurs in
walkable urban code areas. Ms. Gomes noted that the department has been working to
gather the data.
Mr. Chiarelli noted that apartments could start charging for parking which would affect
housing affordability. Mr. Chiarelli asked what would make a housing project affordable.
Mr. Chiarelli added that people that live in affordable housing still have vehicles.
Francisco Barraza noted that a reduction in vehicles per household would not be
attainable. Mr. Barraza stated that downtown development discourages parking, but
other parts of the city cannot accommodate the reduction. Mr. Barraza added that the
proposed text amendment would benefit developers rather than individuals.
Chair Abegg stated that she hasn’t seen a decrease in vehicles with less parking
availability. Chair Abegg asked if existing projects could revise their site plan to reduce
the parking. Chair Abegg asked about the outreach and noted that in-person meetings
are less accessible for the community.
Vice Chair Hurd noted that she has seen multifamily projects with excessive parking
but would discourage filling empty parking lots with more housing. Vice Chair Hurd
noted that the data utilized needed to be evaluated. Chair Abegg noted that the
reduction made sense in some overlay areas but not the entire city.
Ms. Gomes noted that staff has heard similar comments from northern villages. Ms.
Gomes noted that if the text amendment is adopted, all current developments could
utilize the parking reduction. Ms. Gomes noted that existing projects would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. Ms. Gomes noted that information only items for
text amendment allow the community to voice their initial concerns prior to
recommendation. Ms. Gomes added that the information is available online and
recommended the committee to promote any input. Chair Abegg noted that the in-
person meetings are not accessible to the entire community. Ms. Gomes stated that the
text amendments have been a respond to City Council requests and legislative
movements. Chair Abegg reiterated that a virtual meeting would increase community
input and accessibility. Ms. Gomes stated that not all facilities have the technical
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 524
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 3
capabilities to host hybrid meetings.
Mr. Chiarelli noted that South Mountain has not have quorum in several months. Mr.
Chiarelli added that this prevents community input. Mr. Chiarelli asked what the city has
done to ensure an active committee. Chair Abegg encouraged Committee Member
Chiarelli to contact the City Council. Ms. Gomes voiced her agreement and confirmed
that the City Council is addressing the issue.
Public Comment:
Mr. Hertel stated that ADA parking spaces will be utilized by non-ADA vehicles. Mr.
Hertel added that an efficient public transportation system is required prior to a parking
reduction. Mr. Hertel asked for the purpose behind the text amendment and if any data
was collected to support the reduction in Laveen. Mr. Hertel added that this would result
in modifications to existing approved site plans. Mr. Hertel voiced his opposition to the
text amendment.
Committee Discussion:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 525
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
Committee Member Sherman stated that the pick-up/drop-off areas should be
encouraged to be on-street to reduce the number of driveways.
Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the proposal, citing an example
of an affordable housing development with a low parking requirement where there is an
issue with cars parking on the street.
Committee Member Dana Johnson asked for clarification regarding the on-street
parking allowance in the infill district and expressed concern about the proposal from
an equity perspective. Mr. Grande provided clarification that on-street parking would
no longer count toward parking requirements in the infill district.
Committee Member Uss stated that parking is a barrier to providing affordable
housing and that this proposal would open up more parcels for affordable housing
development.
Committee Member Martinez agreed with the example raised by Ms. Olivas, noting
that traffic situation around the development is problematic due to the reduced parking
requirements.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 526
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2
Committee Member Gaughan stated that it is important to get families into housing
units and that providing parking makes the units more expensive.
Committee Member Martinez noted that low-income people still own cars. Ms. Uss
replied that the vehicle ownership rate is lower for low-income people.
Vice Chair O’Grady stated that it would be helpful to tour affordable developments
with minimal parking, such as the Native American Connections buildings.
Committee Member Rachel Frazier Johnson asked that staff provide examples of
affordable developments with lower parking requirements for the next meeting.
Chair Gonzales asked for clarification on how the proposal would affect the Downtown
Code. Mr. Grande clarified that it would not change any requirements of the Downtown
Code.
Committee Member Sonoskey asked about maximum parking requirements. Mr.
Grande replied that there were only parking maximums in the Downtown Code, and
this proposal would not change that.
Committee Member Olivas asked about congestion on narrow streets with street
parking. Mr. Grande replied that the Street Transportation Department reviews any on-
street parking to verify the street width is sufficient to handle the parked cars and the
flow of traffic.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 527
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC DISCUSSION:
No member of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking, the scope, requirements and adjustments for multifamily development.
Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal and the
comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development, Walkable
Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the changes
that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for streetscapes. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning
Commission and City Council.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:
Ms. Schmieder asked about the text amendment as a method of clarifying information
and parking reduction is a significant change and why this being considered as a text
amendment. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the text amendment is a method that allow
the City to adjust an existing requirement. Ms. Schmieder stated that changing the
parking requirements has big implications for neighborhoods and new development. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that a text amendment is changes to
the text of the requirement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
STAFF RESPONSE:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 528
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 529
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
Committee Member Hankins asked about the impetus behind this proposal. Mr.
Grande replied that there was interest from the city and stakeholders in reducing
barriers to providing housing.
Vice Chair Lagrave asked if the proposal makes the assumption that people residing
in affordable housing have lower vehicle usage. Mr. Grande replied that he didn’t have
any studies available on the question but will try to provide more information at the next
meeting.
Committee Member Santoro asked if there were studies done that show apartment
buildings with vacant parking spaces. Mr. Grande replied that he would follow up with
more information at the next meeting.
Chair Bowser stated that multifamily housing has different users than single-family,
which could impact the need for parking, adding that he would like to see a requirement
for proximity to transit as part of the proposal.
Committee Member Kollar stated that parking in many apartment complexes can be
very difficult and that he’d like to see studies showing the feasibility of the proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 530
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 6, 2023
Page 2
Committee Member Younger asked if this amendment would only affect new
construction. Mr. Grande replied that it was for new construction.
Committee Member Israel asked about the AMI levels included in the definition of
affordable housing. Mr. Grande replied that there will be more information by the next
meeting when there is proposed text.
Committee Member Reynolds stated that low-income families may have multiple
people working and needing parking spaces, which could be an issue.
Committee Member Nowell stated that the proposal could increase demand on
commercial parking lots nearby, potentially leading to issues in the future.
Committee Member Younger asked what the purpose of the proposal was. Mr.
Grande replied that it would eliminate a barrier to providing additional housing.
Chair Bowser stated that there is a general need to reduce parking requirements
across the city because the city is generally overparked, adding that he would like to
see some studies to show the need for this specific proposal.
Committee Member Kollar stated that the 1.25 spaces per unit for multifamily housing
seems low.
Committee Member Israel asked for clarification on the proposed citywide
requirements for multifamily housing compared to proposed requirements related to
transit-oriented areas in the central part of Phoenix. Mr. Grande provided clarification.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 531
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.
Mr. Virgil stated that developers will try to fit more homes in a development by
removing parking spaces. Mr. Virgil stated that there is never enough parking for
visitors. Mr. Virgil stated that the City wants to push people out of their cars.
Mr. Sommacampagna asked about removing on-street parking in the Infill
Development District. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Street Transportation
Department has had issues with adding bike lanes in certain areas because
developments are counting the on-street parking towards their minimum required
parking spaces.
Mr. Virgil stated that the City does not want people to own cars.
Mr. Zambrano stated that part of the intent of the text amendment is trying to support
multi-modal transportation.
Chair Lawrence stated that this would be a great idea if everything was within walking
distance of the light rail.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 532
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Mr. Virgil stated that he would rather have too much parking than not enough. Mr. Virgil
asked if handicap parking would be reduced as well. Mr. Zambrano responded that
ADA parking requirements would still be the same. Mr. Virgil asked if the ideas for the
text amendments are coming from California. Mr. Zambrano responded that they are
trying to address a number of issues, including the housing shortage and affordability.
Vice Chair Perreira asked Mr. Zambrano could share his opinion on the text
amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that based on information he has heard, the
current Phoenix Zoning Ordinance parking requirement requires more parking than
what the actual market demand is for parking.
Mr. Virgil reiterated that he would rather have more parking than not enough.
Chair Lawrence stated that he would have to disagree with the parking requirement
supplying more than the actual parking demand. Chair Lawrence asked if Mr. Zambrano
has ever lived in apartment complex in Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded he has lived
in apartment complex only in Tempe. Chair Lawrence asked if there was plenty of
parking when coming home at 9:00 PM. Mr. Zambrano responded that he had a
reserved parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that when the parking ratio is 0.5
spaces per dwelling unit, there are not enough reserved spaces for each unit. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 0.5 spaces per unit ratio is only for the Walkable Urban
Code, which is typically along the light rail corridor. Chair Lawrence stated that he is
okay with the proposal along the light rail, but that other apartment complexes he has
been to have had parking issues. Chair Lawrence added that he has never driven into
an apartment complex before that has had many empty parking spots or an empty
space nearby the unit, which is under the current parking requirements.
Mr. Virgil stated that there is an apartment complex on Union Hills Drive and 35th
Avenue where off-street parking is impossible to find in the complex and people park in
the street, noting that their parking is under the current requirements.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 533
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No quorum.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Committee member Ashley Hare left during the previous item, thus losing quorum.
Page 534
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 14, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No quorum.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
No quorum.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 535
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No quorum.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
No quorum.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 536
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.
Discussion:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 537
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 20, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Staff Presentation:
Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for a reduction in
parking for multifamily and affordable multifamily citywide. Ms. Sanchez Luna summarized
other parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the proposed parking
reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by noting the proposed
hearing dates for the text amendment.
Questions from the Committee:
Mr. Sanou and Ms. Wallace voiced their disagreement.
Chair Perez stated that the text amendment came from movement at the legislative level.
Chair Perez voiced her disagreement on the proposed text amendment and provided an
example on 67th Avenue and Broadway Road that would be able to reduce parking with
the proposed text amendment. Chair Perez noted that all current projects could revise
their site plan to reduce the number of parking.
Angelica Terrazas voiced her disagreement and stated that the reduction in parking
would make living in the city inconvenient, negatively effecting the population.
Chair Perez stated that Estella did not have the infrastructure nor amenities to support the
reduction. Chair Perez added that the reduction could work in certain areas of the city, but
not the entire city nor Estrella.
Dan Rush stated multifamily development did not have enough parking. Chair Perez
stated that if parking is unavailable, it could allow for alternative forms of transportation.
Ms. Wallace stated that Estrella did not have the public transportation infrastructure or
street infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Wallace stated that the population
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 538
needed vehicles and parking spaces. Ms. Wallace reiterated her disagreement and
opposition to the text amendment. Chair Perez noted that families have numerous
vehicles that overcrowd garages and driveways. Ms. Wallace stated that parking garages
could help reduce on street parking and overcrowded driveways.
Ms. Terrazas stated that single-family residences don’t always have families that require
one vehicle. Ms. Terrazas noted that numerous people share one house, requiring
additional vehicles. Ms. Terrazas voiced her disagreement and added that the reduction
was unpractical.
Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking is only feasible to certain social groups who
can afford the reduction.
Chair Perez asked staff about the input that they have received in the northern villages.
Ms. Escolar noted that they have heard similar concerns and were opposed to the text
amendment.
Ms. Terrazas asked for information regarding commercial parking reduction. Ms. Terrazas
noted that a reduction in commercial parking would also have negative effects on the
village. Ms. Escolar stated that the proposed text amendment would not reduce
commercial parking.
Public Comment:
Ms. Groff stated that the proposed text amendment does not affect the parking maximum.
Ms. Groff stated that the idea would be to allow the market demand to determine the
number of parking. Ms. Groff noted that this could lead to shared parking between
developments and parking adjusted to the market.
Committee Discussion:
Ms. Wallace stated that the reduction would allow for zero parking. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
responded that the zero required parking would only be in the Walkable Urban Code and
affordable housing projects.
Ms. Groff added that the lack of parking could reduce rental rates. Mr. Sanou disagreed.
Chair Perez noted that there could be additional revenue if there were rented parking
garages. Ms. Wallace stated that the parking garages should be free in certain areas.
Ms. Wallace voiced her opposition for the proposed text amendment.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 539
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. Klimek shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a typical
multifamily development with a lot of parking. He shared the current and proposed
parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable multifamily
development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development District,
market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and affordable
multifamily development in the WU Code. He displayed an example for each type of
multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and
shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be. He then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code
and concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUESTIONS
Committee Members Adams, Alauria, O’Hara and Vice Chair Fogelson expressed
concern over the proposed parking reduction.
Committee Members O’Hara asked if 1.25 spaces per unit is a standard that comes
from a national study or if it focuses on cities such as Phoenix. Mr. Klimek responded
that the ITE study is national and shows 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development
and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development. He added that the proposal also
equates to 1 space per resident dwelling plus 0.25 guest spaces.
Committee Member Molfetta stated that the zoning district prescribes the number of
dwelling units permitted on a site so less parking means more units can be constructed.
Committee Member Freeman stated that this provides greater flexibility, that the
parking supply should be specific to the context, and that the current standard is high.
He asked if this will limit the amount of parking that can be provided. Mr. Klimek
responded that this reduces the number of spaces that are required but does not limit
the amount of parking that can be provided.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 540
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 21, 2023
Page 2
Committee Members O’Hara asked Chair Jaramillo how the proposal was received by
the Planning Commission. Chair Jaramillo responded that the proposal was well
received, will support affordable housing, and he then cited cul-de-sac in Tempe as an
example of an innovative community that would not be permitted in Phoenix.
Committee Members O’Hara stated that cul-de-sac is at a good location with plenty of
students, good access to transit and ASU, and a responsible owner. He expressed
concern that not all owners are responsible, and this could be used to create less
desirable housing products. Committee Members Krentz stated he was involved in
the cul-de-sac project and that half the residents are not affiliated with ASU.
Committee Member Sommacampagna asked if the parking reductions in the Infill
Development District would be allowed by-right and if there were any parking reductions
permitted in the area that require a use permit. Mr. Klimek responded that the parking
reductions are by-right in the Infill Development Area and responded that he wasn’t sure
about the use permit areas.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 541
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 26, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 542
ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 27, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Adams asked how the parking reductions were determined. Mr.
Rogers stated that he was not aware of how the reductions were determined, but he
would provide the staff report.
Committee Member Keyser stated that surveys have shown that people want mass
transit, but he expects innovation in autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, or smart car
technology to impact how people interact with cars. Committee Member Keyser stated
that Phoenix could become walkable someday, but the City needs to implements linear
cores. Committee Member Keyser stated that he is shy on this text amendment until we
know the future automobile market trends.
Committee Member Solorio stated that parking minimums have been eliminated
across the country in cities like Buffalo, Seattle, and Portland and in the City of Mesa’s
downtown form-based code. Committee Member Solorio explained that parking will be
determined by the financier based on the product type, so luxury apartments will still
provide parking and developments that serve specialty populations such as veterans,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 543
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5
the elderly, or individuals with severe mental illnesses will be able to provide less
parking and thus more units.
Committee Member Fitzgerald encouraged everyone to read the text amendments
very carefully and stated that there is no outreach to the people in neighborhoods.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Hathaway stated that there is a law of unintended consequences that is always
present and stated that the increase in luxury apartments being built in Phoenix has
caused the City to be ranked number one in the county for increasing housing rates at
32 percent. Mr. Hathaway stated that he understands the need for affordable housing,
but there will be consequences and explained that places like Portland, Southern
California, or Manhattan are not the same as Phoenix because car ownership is much
higher in Phoenix.
Jackie Rich stated that she would like to see the research that supports the parking
reduction and stated that the proposed text amendment would reduce parking
requirements for luxury units to what is currently required for a studio unit. Ms. Rich
stated that luxury unit residents will likely want amenities like electric vehicle charging
rather than fewer parking spaces and explained people will not walk because the City of
Phoenix is seeing around 100 days with temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit and
because Phoenix is ranked number six in most pedestrian fatalities. Ms. Rich stated that
while some residents in affordable housing developments may not drive, some
residents may have a medical condition that make it difficult to walk and those residents
need easily accessible parking and explained more public transit needs to be available
before this text amendments moves forward.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 544
ATTACHMENT E
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting August 7, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation, with modifications
VPC Vote 14-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano discussed the purpose of the parking reductions text amendment and
potential benefits. Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then
shared the current and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-
wide, affordable multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill
Development District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code, and affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted
that the proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an
average of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban
development and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, which has decades-worth of data based on
studies done in cities throughout the nation where cars were counted and resulted in
these parking ratios based on the actual parking demand. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code.
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment, VPC results,
Planning Commission results, and stated that staff recommends approval as listed in
the staff report.
Questions from the Committee:
Ms. Sepic asked how the City defines affordable housing, noting that the term is often
used politically. Mr. Zambrano responded that development would only qualify as
affordable housing after being vetted through the various programs and meeting the
criteria to be able to qualify as an affordable housing project. Mr. Zambrano added that
the City would not accept a development as affordable housing just because the
developer calls it affordable, and that it would need to go through the programs
necessary to qualify it as an affordable housing project.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 545
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Chair Popovic stated that he works for the largest affordable housing developer in the
country and the seventh largest market-rate housing developer in the country. Chair
Popovic stated that parking is the most prohibitive, restrictive and costly element in
housing development. Chair Popovic noted that the costs spent on building parking
cannot be recuperated and it limits affordable housing developers on bringing their
projects to fruition. Chair Popovic stated that his firm recently put in a bid for a Request
for Proposals (RFP) in Tempe for affordable housing, which required over 435 parking
spaces, costing over $15 million to build two parking structures, or $35,000 per parking
stall, and the project died. Chair Popovic emphasized that parking increases costs for
housing development and makes housing less affordable by requiring more parking.
Mr. Goodhue asked where people would park their cars. Chair Popovic responded
that not many people living in true affordable housing projects own cars and the current
parking requirements do not meet the actual parking demand of affordable housing.
Ms. Sepic stated that she is a multifamily operator and thinks it would be wrong to not
reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Sepic stated that one of her clients that is building
a high-rise building in Downtown Phoenix is still building in parking, despite having
minimal parking requirements because it is located right along the light rail. Ms. Sepic
added that based on her experience of operating Class C apartment buildings, most of
the residents in the studio and one-bedroom units did not own vehicles. Ms. Sepic
stated that most of the two-bedroom units had at least one vehicle and the three- and
four-bedroom units that had anywhere from eight to 10 people living in it typically had
two vehicles. Ms. Sepic noted that an average of about one-fourth of parking was
unused for apartment complexes she operated. Ms. Sepic stated that she does believe
there is room to adjust the parking ratios and that she does not believe they should be
kept as high as they currently are.
Mr. Goodhue stated that he moved in 1990 from Seattle into an apartment nearby his
current home and stayed there for a few months, and there was no one parking on the
street. Mr. Goodhue noted that these parking ratios were based on what was required
back in the 1980s and now the streets are covered with cars and are coming into the
adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Goodhue added that the City of Seattle requires no
parking adjacent to their light rail and someone he knew opened up a business next to a
brand-new apartment complex that had cars parked along the alley that were blocking
the loading bay for the business. Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking ratios should be
looked at to make sure they are realistic but disagreed with reducing the parking ratios
to an extreme.
Chair Popovic agreed that the parking ratios should not be reduced to an extreme,
noting that the parking ratios still do need to be reduced. Chair Popovic reiterated that
many of the parking spaces for his affordable housing developments are unused. Chair
Popovic shared the criteria in order to get the credits for affordable housing.
Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking for affordable housing should be reduced to meet
their demand but expressed concerns with reducing parking for market-rate housing.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 546
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Chair Popovic reiterated the cost of building parking structures. Vice Chair Anita
Mortensen asked if the parking spaces are used once the building is built. Chair
Popovic responded that it depends, but most residents in market-rate studio and one-
bedroom units do not use cars.
Ms. Sepic added that she knows two people her age that do not have a driver’s license.
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that this lowers the parking ratio. Chair Popovic stated
that the younger generation does not want cars.
Mr. Wise stated that he has lived in Arizona for a long time, and it is car-centric.
Ms. Sepic stated that rideshare is another way to get around.
Chair Popovic disagreed that Phoenix is car-centric, noting that it is changing.
Ms. Sepic agreed. Ms. Sepic stated that she is okay with the passenger loading zone
requirement as proposed. Ms. Sepic added that she believes there should be a
reduction to the parking ratios, but not to the extent as proposed. Ms. Sepic
recommended there be 0.5 parking spaces required for each studio unit or one-
bedroom unit, 1.25 parking spaces required for each two-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces
required for each three- or more bedroom unit. Ms. Sepic recommended that the
average parking ratio for market-rate housing be 1.75 spaces per unit.
Mr. Soronson asked for clarification that Ms. Sepic recommends the proposed 1.25
parking spaces per unit ratio is increased to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Ms. Sepic
responded affirmatively. Mr. Soronson asked why Ms. Sepic would recommend
increasing the parking ratio to 1.75 when she just stated that she believes the parking
ratios should be reduced.
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that the current parking ratio is 1.5 parking spaces per
unit for one- and two-bedroom units.
Ms. Sepic stated that she believes the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces
per unit for market-rate housing needs to be increased. Mr. Soronson asked again why
Ms. Sepic believes it should be increased when she had just stated that she believes
the parking ratios need to be decreased. Ms. Sepic responded that 1.25 parking spaces
per unit is still too low for market-rate housing.
Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that 1.75 parking spaces per unit is too high and is
above the current requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per unit for one- and two-bedroom
units.
Mr. Soronson concurred.
Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit was the
average of the current requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that the parking ratio of
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 547
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
1.25 parking spaces per unit is the average of actual parking demands per the ITE
Manual.
Mr. Goodhue stated that there was a similar discussion of parking reductions for a
project within the Kierland Commons area which proposed 1.45 parking spaces per unit,
noting that the parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit is even lower than what was
approved in Kierland Commons. Mr. Goodhue recommended the parking ratio match
what was approved in Kierland Commons.
Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that he believes the parking reduction for that project
should have been more. Chair Popovic stated that from a developer’s perspective, 1.25
parking spaces per unit is more than reasonable.
Ms. Sepic noted that 1.45 parking spaces per unit is a higher ratio than 1.25 parking
spaces per unit.
Mr. Soronson agreed, noting that Ms. Sepic had previously stated that she
recommended a parking ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per unit.
Chair Popovic concurred, noting that it would result in even more parking.
Ms. Sepic recommended that the parking ratios for affordable housing be lower than
market-rate housing. Ms. Sepic noted that the current requirement for a studio unit is
1.3 parking spaces per unit, and most people that live in studio units do not even have a
car.
Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if Ms. Sepic wanted to keep the parking ratios
broken out based on the number of units. Ms. Sepic responded affirmatively.
Mr. Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic’s proposed parking ratios are based on traffic
engineering studies. Ms. Sepic responded that it is based on her experience of
operating multiple apartment complexes that had studio, one-, two, three-, and four-
bedroom units. Ms. Sepic reiterated that residents in studio and one-bedroom units did
not have a car.
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that it is a trend that is being seen more often.
Ms. Hall asked if the proposed parking ratio was prepared by traffic engineers. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it came from the ITE Manual.
Chair Popovic stated that he agreed with the proposed parking ratios per staff
recommendation.
Ms. Hall stated that most multifamily projects in the Kierland Commons area opt for
PUD zoning so they can reduce their parking requirements, noting that there is a way to
get around it now rather than changing the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 548
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Abram Bowman asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit
would simplify the process for developers rather than having the parking ratios broken
out by unit. Chair Popovic responded that some projects have more studios than one-
bedroom units and other projects do not have any studios and have all one- and two-
bedroom units. Chair Popovic stated that the parking ratios do need to be broken out by
unit.
Ms. Sepic concurred. Ms. Sepic added that more three- and four-bedroom units are
needed for families, but they are more expensive to build. Ms. Sepic noted that Arizona
is top five in refugee resettlement and most refugee families have a lot of children. Ms.
Sepic reiterated that the type of housing product needed is three- and four-bedroom
units. Ms. Sepic stated that the information of the parking ratios should have been put in
a graph to better understand the proposal.
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that there are some individuals that may not fully
understand what the parking ratios translate to.
Ms. Sepic concurred, noting that the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per
unit for any type of unit and a 50% reduction of that for affordable housing was
confusing.
Mr. Wise asked if the Committee’s recommended modifications would get to the City
Council if the Planning Commission has already recommended approval of this text
amendment with their own modifications. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting
that the City Council members and Mayor would review the results and meeting minutes
of the VPCs and the Planning Commission and would make their own decision based
on that information collectively.
Ms. Sepic stated that if there was a generic parking ratio and an apartment complex
was built with all three-bedroom units, 1.25 parking spaces per unit would not be
enough parking.
Daniel Mazza asked if the developer would just build more parking in that scenario.
Chair Popovic responded that they would not build more than required because of the
cost associated with it.
Mr. Soronson asked if it costs $35,000 per parking stall for surface parking or
structured parking. Chair Popovic responded that surface parking costs $30,000 per
parking stall and $35,000 per parking stall for structured parking. Chair Popovic added
that the cost could go up to $60,000 per parking stall for underground parking on the
first level and goes up from there the further underground it goes. Chair Popovic stated
that almost a third of real estate development costs are related to parking.
Mr. Wise expressed concerns with there being no parking left after the parking
reductions, assuming people will still drive as much as they are now. Chair Popovic
stated that from the data his firm is getting, the trend is to not own a car. Mr. Wise
asked if someone could rent an apartment unit without a parking space. Chair Popovic
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 549
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
responded affirmatively. Mr. Wise asked what someone would do if they owned a car,
and the apartment complex did not have a dedicated parking space for them. Chair
Popovic responded that they would go somewhere else that did have parking available
for them.
Mr. Soronson stated that there is a project being built with no parking in the City of
Tempe along the light rail.
Mr. Goodhue stated that the City Council would probably focus on the Planning
Commission’s recommendation versus this Committee’s recommendation. Mr.
Zambrano responded that this information may be helpful to the City Council, since the
Plan that was adopted.
Public Comments:
None.
Staff Response:
None.
MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
Modifications listed for clarity:
• Market-Rate Housing City-wide
o 1 parking space per studio unit
o 1.5 parking spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit
o 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit
• Affordable Housing City-wide
o 0.5 parking spaces per studio unit
o 1 parking space per 1- or 2-bedroom unit
o 2 parking spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit
VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
14-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with
modifications passes with Committee members Bowman, Bustamante, DeMoss,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, Ward, Wise, Mortensen,
and Popovic in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 550
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-1
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
1 member of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.
1 member of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum
requirements. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development,
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for
streetscapes. Mr. Roanhorse discussed affordable housing at the applicability for
parking and demand adjustments that will be made. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the time
frame for review for the at Villages, Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. DePerro stated that the development of the text amendment was based on many
years of trying to address parking for multifamily development with a nominal city-wide
reduction and reductions for affordable and infill housing and the biggest reduction for
the Walkable Urban Code. Mr. DePerro noted that the staggered approach for parking
was possible. Mr. DePerro explained parking information was obtained from the Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual to determine parking demands and to make it
meaningful and applicable to the city.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Jewett asked if the parking demand we are seeing now is
accurate or is there a margin for adjustment. Mr. DePerro responded that certain
adjustments were made where the calculated demand was 1.23 spaces which was
rounded up to 1.25 spaces to provide a measure of simplification.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 551
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Vice Chair Rodriguez asked what is expected in the future for single family or
commercial developments and will parking requirements decrease overall. Mr. DePerro
responded that there has been a focus on multifamily development and this is unlikely
to change but for now Council is looking to reduce parking requirements Citywide.
Mr. Procaccini asked has there been any consideration for requiring parking
maximums. Mr. DePerro responded that this exists in the Downtown Code but was not
consider for this text amendment because there are different expectations downtown
and there are no plans currently, but it may be applicable for the WU Code in the future.
Mr. Proaccinni asked about the applicability for infill areas. Mr. DePerro responded it
might be possible but it would depend if an infill area were rezoned to WU Code.
Chair Wagner asked about the applicability of 0 parking within the WU Code. Mr.
DePerro responded that the City has invested funds on light rail and other transit
methods and these are encouraged with reducing parking. Mr. DePerro mentioned that
there is a difference between caps and minimums and it is ideal to have some flexibility.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Cory Kincaid introduced himself and mentioned his volunteer work with Perfect
Phoenix and has been involved with parking issues. Mr. Kincaid expressed concern and
has spoken with developers and understands the frustration with parking around the
city. Mr. Kincaid noted the economics of parking and expressed support for the parking
reduction text amendment.
Neal Haddad with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix introduced himself
and expressed concerns with the parking reduction. Mr. Haddad stated in some areas
of the city you need access to an automobile and you cannot impose reductions for the
entire city. Mr. Haddad noted that in some villages the distance to stores is far and an
automobile is necessary. Mr. Haddad stated that reducing parking to 0 does not make
sense. Mr. Haddad stated that there is also an issue with providing outreach and getting
information to the public and that the Village Planning Committees was not the best
method. Mr. Haddad expressed that the text amendment was not presented in some
Villages because there was no quorum so the information did not reach the public. Mr.
Haddad stated that the proposed parking reduction will create a big problem all over the
city.
Committee Member Kleinman commented that there are various meeting coordinated
by the city and asked what type of outreach is expected to get more people involved.
Mr. Haddad responded that the Planning and Development should include outreach to
registered neighborhood groups through NSD to get information directly to the public.
Mr. Haddad stated he works with a neighborhood group to disseminate information and
noted that many meetings are not well attended and there has to be a way to get people
involved.
STAFF RESPONSE
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 552
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are many issues that have been discussed and
that the City has taken great steps to provide information and has received and
extensive volume of comments and these will be reviewed and considered.
Mr. DePerro noted there is an additional action regarding short term rentals that is not
zoning related, the City Code is being amended to adopt the strictest regulations that
the state will allow for licensing, and this may impact short term rentals and there is
much more happening.
Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification on state requirements and taxation for short term
rentals. Mr. DePerro stated this text amendment is zoning entitlement to allow an ADU
on your property and talks about accessory uses. Mr. Cardenas asked if there is only
one chance for review and will there be an opportunity to make changes in the future if
there are unintended consequences. Mr. DePerro responded from the meeting tonight
the recommendations will be reviewed and the amendment will go to the Planning
Commission for further review and discussion and finally to the City Council for action.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Paul Benjamin seconded the
motion.
DISCUSSION:
Committee Member George noted a situation in Encanto Palmcroft where a developer
wanted to develop vacant lot with reduced parking. Ms. George stated if the
development did occur it would have been detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhoods and there was extensive opposition. Ms. George expressed her concern
and stated her opposition for the proposed text amendment.
Committee Member G. G. George made a substitute motion to deny Z-TA-8-23-Y.
Chair Wagner asked for a second to the substitute motion and no second motion was
received and Chair Wagner stated the substitute motion failed. Chair Wagner stated the
original motion for approval would be considered and asked the Committee for
discussion and no discussion was noted.
VOTE:
12-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Benjamin, Cardenas, Doescher, Jewett, Kleinman, Mahrle, Picos,
Procaccini, Searles, Tedhams, Vice Chair Rodriguez and Chair Wagner in support; with
Committee Member George opposed.
Chair Wagner stated that the text amendment does not work for all of Phoenix but does
work for Encanto Village and supports the proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 553
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 554
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Staff Presentation:
Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department,
provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to reduce parking
requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. Gomes described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
Questions from the Committee:
Rebecca Perrera asked if any research was done to determine the proposed parking
ratio. Ms. Gomes stated that staff utilized ITE data. Ms. Perrera asked if it was for the
entire country or were there categories. Ms. Gomes noted that there are three
subcategories to evaluate the data. Ms. Perrera stated that Laveen needed parking and
that there is not enough infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Perrera stated that
she would like to see a reduction in commercial uses rather than residential. Ms.
Perrera added that the proposed text amendment seems to treat people in affordable
housing differently from other individuals.
Carlos Ortega asked how the parking reduction would benefit Laveen as it continues to
grow. Ms. Gomes noted that the text amendment would apply city-wide and would
make housing more affordable by reducing some requirements. Ms. Gomes added that
the proposed changes are minimums and that some developments provide more than
the required.
JoAnne Jensen stated that the proposed text amendment would treat individuals in
affordable housing differently from market rate housing. Ms. Gomes asked for
clarification. Ms. Jensen noted that the parking rate should be the same for affordable
housing and market rate housing. Ms. Jensen stated that she would not support the text
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 555
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2
amendment.
Francisco Barraza stated that the city has a large footprint and instead of having
sufficient public transit or density, it continues to grow outward. Mr. Barraza stated that
Laveen doesn’t have enough public transit infrastructure to support the text amendment.
Ms. Gomes added that affordable housing developments are typically located along
transit options. Ms. Gomes noted that developers would look at the surrounding
amenities.
Public Comment:
Dan Penton asked for clarification on-street parking and bike lanes. Phil Hertel agreed.
Ms. Gomes stated that developers could utilize on-street parking as part of their
required parking; however, current initiatives have promoted bicycle lanes. Ms. Gomes
explained that the bicycle lanes replace on-street parking. Ms. Gomes added that the
proposed reduction would remove the need for on-street parking by providing a
reduction for on-site parking. Mr. Penton stated that there should be a reduction in
vehicle lanes to provide bike lanes. Mr. Penton added that developers should provide
additional bicycle parking since there is a reduction in auto parking. Mr. Penton added
that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter and that
the reductions should be a village-by-village basis. Mr. Penton stated that public transit
needed to be provided before a reduction was approved.
Phil Hertel asked if ADA parking spaces are considered reserved or unreserved. Ms.
Gomes noted that ADA parking spaces are reserved. Mr. Hertel noted that
enforcement would be an issue and Laveen doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure
to support the reduction. Mr. Hertel noted a multifamily development on 35th Avenue
and Southern Road and asked if individuals from the development parked in the
commercial uses, who would enforce the parking situation. Ms. Gomes stated that the
proposed development is probably not affordable and would be at the 1.25 parking
requirement. Ms. Gomes noted that the commercial development can enforce who
parks in their parking lot.
Jack Purvis asked if the reduction would apply to existing or proposed developments.
Ms. Gomes stated that it would be existing and new developments.
Committee Discussion:
Mr. Ortega asked the committee if they would support a standard parking reduction
regardless of affordable or market rate. Patrick Nasser-Taylor stated that this would
negatively impact individuals living in all multifamily developments.
Mr. Penton stated that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix letter regarding the parking reduction and that there is a need for pedestrian-
only zones.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 556
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3
Mr. Hertel stated that the committee could vote to recommend denial.
Motion:
Carlos Ortega motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Jennifer Rouse
seconded the motion.
Ms. Perrera asked staff to provide their input on the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix recommendation. Ms. Gomes stated the City’s recommendation would be
approval, but the committee could still recommend a different parking ratio. Ms. Gomes
noted that the passenger loading zones are meant for drop off services such as food or
getting an Uber. Ms. Gomes noted that commercial loading areas are away from the
street and that the passenger loading zones are not meant for commercial loading.
Vote:
8-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members
Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in favor.
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 557
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 10-4
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Gaughan stated that this proposal could create more resistance
to affordable housing from neighbors concerned about traffic.
Committee Member Sherman stated that the streets belong to the public, anyone can
park there, and streets can be safer with cars parked on the street.
Committee Member Dana Johnson stated that he doesn’t support the reductions for
affordable housing because he doesn’t want to assume residents of affordable housing
don’t own cars, noting that vehicle ownership is still the way people are living in
Phoenix.
Committee Member Uss stated that there are statistics from different organizations
that show lower vehicle ownership rates for low-income people, further noting that
parking requirements historically have been racially discriminatory.
Committee Member Olivas stated that parking is an issue in projects that have used
reduced parking requirements, leading to people parking a long way from their units
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 558
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2
and streets becoming parking lots.
Committee Member Starks asked for clarification on the amount of affordable housing
that needs to be provided to use the lower rate. Mr. Grande replied that the reduced
requirement would only apply to the affordable units.
Chair Gonzales stated that it can be challenging to get funding for projects with
parking requirements that are lower than what’s standard. Mr. Grande stated that he
would discuss the issue with staff internally.
Committee Member Greenman asked whether the city explored the idea of removing
permit requirements for on-street parking for historic neighborhoods. Mr. Grande
replied that he wasn’t aware of any conversations about that option.
Committee Member Martinez stated that she doesn’t see a difference in vehicle
ownership between affordable housing and market rate housing.
Committee Member Greenman asked whether these new requirements would apply
to existing apartments or only new developments. Mr. Grande replied that if a
developer were to add new units to a site and go through a new site plan review
process, the proposed requirements would apply to the whole site.
Committee Member Sonoskey stated that developers should have more tools
available to make this feasible and that more parking could be provided on-street if the
city allowed head-in parking.
Committee Member Sherman asked about the Downtown Code. Mr. Grande replied
that this proposal would not affect Downtown Code and that there is already a bonus
points system for reducing parking downtown.
Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the process used to approve the
text amendment.
Committee Member Uss asked if the city is planning any further transportation studies
related to this proposal. Mr. Grande replied that individual projects typically do traffic
analysis and provide necessary improvements.
Committee Member Gaughan asked about whether parking is reviewed for individual
development projects. Mr. Grande stated that the focus is on traffic generated for each
use.
Committee Member Panetta asked if there are many variances looking for parking
reductions and if this is approved, will there be more units constructed. Mr. Grande
discussed the requirements of variances and noted that there are projects that don’t
reach their maximum potential due to an inability to provide enough parking.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 559
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3
Committee Member Sonoskey stated that changing the size of required parking stalls
would also allow more room for parking in garages, which would reduce the amount of
garage space developers need to build.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION
Eva Olivas made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. There was no
second; therefore, the motion failed.
MOTION
Jeff Sherman made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff
recommendation. Ash Uss seconded the motion for approval.
VOTE
10-4, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Burns, Burton, Gaughan, Greenman, Panetta,
Sherman, Sonoskey, Starks, Uss, and Gonzales in favor; Committee Members
Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez, and Olivas opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 560
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 14-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
1 member of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition.
Chris DePerro, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum
requirements. Mr. DePerro discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development,
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. DePerro displayed the
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for
streetscapes. Mr. DePerro provided information on the Institute for Traffic Engineers
(ITE) Parking Manual to determine suitable parking demands. Mr. DePerro discussed
affordable housing at the applicability for parking and demand adjustments that will be
made. Mr. DePerro discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning
Commission and City Council.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Neal Haddad thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and stated he wanted
to high light some of the points in the letter provided to the Committee. Mr. Haddad
stated that some developers have had to deal with parking constraints, but the one size
fits all is not an appropriate action for a City as large as Phoenix. Mr. Haddad stated that
parking spaces calculations for multifamily development should only be based on
proximity to public transportation options not on rental rates or affordable rates. Mr.
Haddad noted the text amendment might be appropriate for the downtown area but is
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 561
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
not acceptable to areas outside the downtown areas and that visibility triangles should
be maintained and part of the parking requirements.
STAFF RESPONSE:
Mr. DePerro responded that visibility triangles are required under City Code, and they
are mentioned in the zoning ordinance when they are not covered by intersections.
Nothing regarding visibility triangles has been changed.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
None.
MOTION
Committee member Dawn Augusta motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee member Kitty Langmade seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
14-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg Thraen, Czerwinski,
Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, O’Malley, Paceley, Wilenchik and Swart in favor
and Committee member Schmieder in opposition.
Mr. Paceley stated the corridor center, high density, light rail are areas where we focus,
and this could be perceived as negative but does support this amendment and votes
yes.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Staff have no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 562
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Nowell asked about the criteria for units to be considered
affordable. Mr. Grande responded with the definition of affordable housing in the
proposed text.
Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concern that funding for transit projects could run out at
some point. Mr. Grande responded by highlighting the Transportation 2050 plan, which
provides a funding source for transit projects for many years into the future.
Committee Member Israel asked about the applicability to single-family attached
housing. Mr. Grande replied that the changes would apply to single-family attached
developments.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked if ADA accessible parking spaces would be
required for developments with no parking. Mr. Grande replied that it wouldn’t because
it is based on the number of spaces provided. Chair Bowser noted that the
requirement is one accessible space per 25 parking spaces.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 563
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 11, 2023
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Larry Whitesell introduced himself and noted that the NCGP recommends denial of
the text amendment, noting that parking studies are not relevant to Phoenix where
transit is lacking. However, he reviewed several recommended modifications if the
proposal is approved.
Jackie Rich introduced herself and spoke about the lack of transit options in Phoenix,
highlighting the amount of time it would take to travel to the VPC meeting by transit.
STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Grande stated that residential developments require loading zones, separate from
passenger drop off and pick up, further noting that the text amendment is targeting
transit-rich sections of the city for the largest reductions, acknowledging that transit
options are limited in many areas of the city.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
MOTION
Committee Member Rick Nowell made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-
Y. Committee Member Rick Powell seconded the motion for denial.
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that Phoenix is not a walkable city, and he has concerns
about where cars are going to park without enough off-street parking.
Committee Member Powell stated that the text amendment was being rushed and
that the city should focus on WU Code and TOD areas for parking reductions, adding
that reductions for affordable housing don’t make sense.
Committee Member Israel stated that affordable housing has financing issues and
that he would be in favor of affordable housing parking reductions.
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that there is no correlation between affordable housing and
a reduced need for parking.
VOTE
9-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed; Committee Members Barto,
Israel, Kirkilas, Nowell, Powell, Reynolds, Santoro, Lagrave, and Bowser in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 564
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 3-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted that the
proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an average
of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development and
1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Manual, which has data based on studies done in cities throughout the nation
where cars were counted and resulted in these parking ratios based on the actual
parking demand. Mr. Zambrano displayed an example for each type of multifamily
development of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and shared what
the difference in the parking requirement would be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code.
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment and stated that staff
recommends approval as listed in the staff report.
Questions from the Committee:
Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the current requirement is a minimum of 1.5
parking spaces per unit for 1- to 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or
more bedroom units. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence asked if
the proposed parking ratio is for any number of bedrooms. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.
Ms. Stockham added that the staff that wrote the proposed text amendment not only
looked at the ITE Manual, which is a mega study of cities throughout the nation over
several decades, but also conducted a study of City of Phoenix projects in terms of the
actual amount of parking most projects provide, and parking variances requested.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 565
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix is like no other city in the country. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the multifamily affordable housing example with the parking
reduction would have 100 units with only 63 parking spaces and 19 unreserved spaces,
noting that it is less than the number of units and that there would be no parking spaces
for visitors if everyone in the apartment complex owned a vehicle. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the parking ratio is a minimum standard, and that developers could still
provide more parking than the minimum based on the demand of their clientele. Chair
Lawrence responded that developers would not provide more than the minimum
parking required because they would not have to provide it and they do not want to
provide it. Mr. Zambrano responded that developers would know what their clientele
parking demand is and will know what they will need to provide in order to have a
successful project, which may be more than the minimum requirement.
Ms. Stockham added that she looked at a recent project that the Rio Vista VPC
approved near the I-17 freeway and Jenny Lin Road, which had provided 25 percent
more parking spaces that the minimum required.
Chair Lawrence agreed that people would not be inclined to rent at a certain apartment
complex if they are not able to park their car there.
Mr. Virgil stated that the parking reduction text amendment would negatively impact
apartment rentals as a result.
Mr. Holton asked what the typical dimensions are for a parking space. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they are typically about eight feet wide and 19 feet long.
Mr. Virgil asked if the text amendment would change the minimum parking dimensions.
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would not change those requirements, noting that
parking dimensions are existing requirements in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Zambrano added that the text amendment is only changing the minimum number of
parking spaces required. Mr. Virgil stated that everyone that lives in the Rio Vista
Village has a car, and that most households have two individuals that work in order to
afford living there, so each household will typically have two cars. Mr. Virgil added that
there is not any affordable housing in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded
that the idea of including affordable housing in the parking reduction text amendment
was to encourage more affordable housing. Mr. Virgil responded that people would be
overcrowded in an apartment complex with not enough parking. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the idea behind the inclusion of affordable housing is that parking
spaces take up a lot of land which makes projects more expensive because of all the
land needing to be dedicated to parking. Mr. Virgil responded that it would make more
sense in Downtown Phoenix since there is not a lot of room to build there, but it will not
work in the Rio Vista Village.
Chair Lawrence added that there are parking garages in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Virgil
agreed, adding that there is a lack of public transit in their area.
Chair Lawrence added that people are not walking a few blocks in the extreme heat
during Phoenix’s summer to go somewhere.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 566
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Mr. Virgil stated that projects in Downtown Phoenix may need the extra space to build
projects, but in the Rio Vista Village they do not, and people will need the extra parking
in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Virgil was unclear why the proposed parking reduction was
City-wide.
Chair Lawrence added that he does not know anyone that lives in Phoenix that does
not own a vehicle since there are other regional and recreational destinations that
require a car to travel to them.
Ms. Stockham stated that she has two employees that do not have cars. Chair
Lawrence asked if they lived in Downtown Phoenix. Ms. Stockham responded that one
employee lives east of Downtown Phoenix and the other lives by Margaret T. Hance
Park. Chair Lawrence asked if Ms. Stockham would agree that reduced parking is
unusual for Arizona. Ms. Stockham responded that there are students that do not have
cars and there is a trend of younger adults that do not want to own cars. Chair
Lawrence stated that he would question the number of students without cars since
Arizona State University (ASU) has a zoo of parking. Ms. Stockham responded that
some students do not have cars because they live in Downtown Phoenix and that is
where their classes are. Chair Lawrence disagreed with a 50 percent reduction for
parking, noting that it would be less than one parking space per home.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the 50 percent parking reduction would not really impact the
Rio Vista Village, because it is specific for the Walkable Urban (WU) Code which is
typically adjacent to the light rail. Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the parking
ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit would be the parking ratio that would apply to their
village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would apply only for
multifamily residential development, and not for single-family homes. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the difference for their village would be 1.5 parking spaces
per unit for 1- and 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or more
bedroom units versus 1.25 parking spaces per unit for any number of bedroom units.
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence stated that it would be
challenging since their village has no other places to park, such as parking garages,
and they do not have street parking. Chair Lawrence added that his HOA does not even
allow street parking and if he has friends that come over, all the cars have to be jammed
into his driveway, or parked on his RV side, which then results in a letter from the HOA
for parking in a landscape area. Chair Lawrence added that his children used to live in
an apartment complex and when visiting them, he could never find a parking space.
Chair Lawrence stated that his son would have to park three blocks away because of
the lack of parking spaces.
Ms. Stockham reiterated that the proposed parking ratios are a minimum and that the
developer that came to the Rio Vista VPC a few months ago knew the area they were
building in and provided 100 more parking spaces than the minimum required. Ms.
Stockham reiterated that more than the minimum number of parking spaces could be
provided, based on the area and the type of people a developer is serving. Ms.
Stockham stated that she had also looked at an affordable housing project and a project
next to the light rail within the Central City Village, which still provided between eight
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 567
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
percent to 12 percent more parking than the minimum required. Chair Lawrence asked
what the reason is for reducing the parking minimums so much. Ms. Stockham
responded that this text amendment stems from the Housing Phoenix Plan, and that the
construction. Ms. Stockham reiterated that parking is extremely expensive and that
most of the time, a developer is burdened by so much parking requirement, that the first
part of the design in a project is for parking. Ms. Stockham added that parking really
limits development based on how much parking needs to be provided.
Mr. Virgil stated that the residential building would become larger in place of the
removed parking spaces.
Chair Lawrence stated that a developer could also buy a smaller lot, which would cost
less money, and they would be able to get more units on smaller lots, and that it is
being set up to appear as if it costs less.
Mr. Scharboneau asked what the process would be if there is a developer that wants
an exception to the minimum parking requirement. Ms. Stockham responded that one
option would be a shared parking model, such as being located next to a parking
garage, or one could apply for a variance to reduce the required parking and would
have to prove that the lot has a hardship.
Chair Lawrence stated that if a developer chooses to provide less parking, they will
have a hard time selling or leasing units when people find out they would not have a
parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that it would hinder developers on the
performance of their projects if they do not make good decisions.
Ms. Stockham added that most projects are funded with construction loans, and banks
are usually conservative in the amount of money they will lend to developers and would
likely not lend money to a developer that would want to build multifamily residential with
less parking in an area that required more parking.
Mr. Holton asked what had been said regarding projects in the Rio Vista Village. Ms.
Stockham responded that she was providing an example of a developer that was
building a project within their village. Mr. Holton stated that people are coming to
Phoenix for the space because they are tired of being in small spaces.
Chair Lawrence asked if the text amendment language was reviewed by the Law
Department. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively.
Mr. Virgil recommended looking at the City of Las Vegas because they have a similar
type of development as Phoenix. Mr. Virgil asked if the City looked at parking for the
City of Las Vegas. Ms. Stockham was not sure if Las Vegas was looked at.
Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix’s environment is pretty brutal to walk in. Chair
Lawrence added that he believes a majority of people in Arizona have a vehicle. Chair
Lawrence stated that he is in the construction industry, and each one of their workers
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 568
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
living within an affordable housing project would need a vehicle to get to a job site
where construction is happening, which is not within walking distance.
Mr. Zambrano reiterated that the parking ratios came from the ITE Manual, which
comes from professional traffic engineers that did a study of the actual parking demand.
Mr. Holton asked if handicap parking is incorporated in the text amendment. Mr.
Zambrano responded that handicap parking requirements are existing standards that
would remain and are not being changed. Mr. Holton asked about the handicap parking
ratios. Mr. Zambrano responded that he is unsure of the exact parking ratios, but he
believes it is based on the number of dwelling units.
Chair Lawrence stated that handicap parking would not be affected by this text
amendment since it is federally regulated.
Mr. Holton stated that the overall message is a parking reduction, so all parking would
be reduced.
Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that this text amendment is separate from
handicap parking requirements. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.
Mr. Scharboneau asked if it was ever considered to focus on specific areas, such as
Downtown Phoenix, rather than City-wide. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are
some existing parking reductions, such as allowing on-street parking to be counted
towards the minimum required parking within the Infill Development District, and parking
reductions within the WU Code, based on proximity to the light rail, or based on being
located in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano added that there are separate parts to the
text amendment, including multifamily City-wide, affordable multifamily City-wide, the
Infill Development District, and the Walkable Urban Code.
Chair Lawrence stated that the part of the text amendment that would affect the Rio
Vista Village would be the multifamily parking reduction City-wide. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the Infill Development District does not come up to the Rio
Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.
Ms. Stockham added that the Committee could vote to approve parts of the text
amendment, such as the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code, if
they are okay with those parts of the text amendment but not okay with the other City-
wide parts of the text amendment.
Mr. Virgil asked what the other VPC recommendations were. Ms. Stockham
responded that the Central City VPC and Encanto VPC recommended approval and the
Laveen VPC recommended denial.
Chair Lawrence stated that the City Council will look at the VPC recommendations and
will make the ultimate decision.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 569
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Mr. Holton stated that the VPC should let the City Council see what they are standing
for.
Mr. Sommacampagna asked about the boundary of the Infill Development District. Mr.
Zambrano responded that anything within the boundary allows single-family attached
(SFA) development by-right, whereas anything outside of the boundary within the grey
area on the map allows single-family attached development subject to obtaining a use
permit. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if a development is outside of the boundary within
the grey area on the map, they would be able to obtain a use permit for SFA as well as
have a 50 percent reduction in parking. Mr. Zambrano responded that they would not
be able to get that parking reduction since that would be single-family development, and
the proposed parking reductions are for multifamily development. Mr.
Sommacampagna asked if townhomes such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, if
condo platted, would not be allowed a parking reduction. Mr. Zambrano responded that
a triplex and above would be considered multifamily. Mr. Sommacampagna asked for
clarification that the proposed parking reductions do not affect SFA development.
Ms. Stockham responded that as she understands it, the text amendment would only
allow the 50 percent parking reduction for multifamily development within the Infill
Development District. Ms. Stockham added that the main intent of the map is to indicate
if SFA development is allowed by-right or subject to a use permit, in addition to some
other items related to development.
Mr. Holton asked what by-right meant. Mr. Zambrano responded that it means it is
allowed without having to go through a special process to allow it. Mr. Holton stated
that he wished to make a motion, noting that the parking reduction is not appropriate for
the Rio Vista Village.
Mr. Virgil stated that Mr. Holton could recommend stipulations with his motion.
Mr. Zambrano stated that text amendments do not have stipulations, but they can be
approved with direction, or that portions of the text amendment could be approved.
Chair Lawrence added that Mr. Holton could also make a motion to deny the entire text
amendment.
Public Comments:
None.
Staff Response:
None.
MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Mr. Holton motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr. Virgil seconded the
motion.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 570
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
3-2; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members
Holton, Virgil, and Lawrence in favor and Committee members Scharboneau and
Sommacampagna opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 571
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
STAFF PRESENTATION
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Mr. Rogers
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Coleman asked how the new multifamily and affordable housing
parking requirements are more simple than the previous requirements. Mr. Rogers
stated that while the proposed parking requirements are more nuanced and
individualized for different uses and locations throughout the City, the new language is a
simple ratio rather than a formula with multiple variables. Committee Member Coleman
asked if a five-bedroom unit would have the same parking requirement as a unit with
less bedrooms. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the new parking calculation is based on the
number of units not the number of bedrooms within units.
Chair Daniels stated that a 300-unit multifamily example had been provided during the
info only item during the June meeting and asked if that slide was in the presentation.
Mr. Rogers stated that the slide deck had been updated to use 100-unit multifamily
examples.
Committee Member Viera stated that she is concerned about how the proposal will
impact the underserved population, stated she would like to pause this discussion until
a mobility plan is presented, and stated that the parking reductions assumes that public
transportation is working for everyone.
Page 572
Committee Member Shepard stated that people can’t live in Phoenix without a car,
stated that the proposal will cause problems, and stated that the proposal will benefit
developers not the general public.
Chair Daniels stated that she had spoken to five developers who stated that they are
not asking for a parking requirement reduction and that they provide more parking than
required on multifamily developments because limited parking can cause safety and
economic issues. Chair Daniels explained that she used to be a regional manager for
apartment complexes and explained she had asked for the 300-unit multifamily example
because apartments have 300-units on average. Chair Daniels stated that the federal
standard occupancy is two people per bedroom and explained that a 300-unit apartment
complex with a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units
typically has 1,200 occupants. Chair Daniels explained that if half of the 1,200
occupants drive the proposal would not provide one parking space for everyone that
drives. Chair Daniels stated that if the 300-unit apartment complex located at 19th
Avenue and Southern had been built under the proposed parking reduction, the
residents of the adjacent subdivision that had opposed the development would now
have residents of the multifamily development parking within their subdivision due to a
lack of available parking in the multifamily development. Chair Daniels stated she
charged $25 a month for covered parking when she managed apartments in 1998 and
explained that with the decrease in required parking she expects parking to run $100-
$150 a month due to the small quantity of parking spaces. Chair Daniels explained that,
per the Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, property management companies are required to
provide safety for the residents and stated the parking reduction will cause dangerous
situations for women who must park outside of their apartment community and walk
from their cars to their apartments during the night. Chair Daniels stated that the
proposal is social and economic racism because it affects the underserved and stated
that the Arizona House bill that had included parking reductions for multifamily had
failed. Chair Daniels stated that she supports parking reductions for commercial uses,
but reducing multifamily parking requirements destroys people’s safety and forces
people pay extra to park within their apartment communities.
Committee Member Shepard asked where people with electric cars will park.
Committee Member Coleman stated that parking reductions within the downtown area
already exist and stated he does not know how the parking reduction will work in places
other than downtown. Chair Daniels stated that the South Central TOD Community
Plan identifies areas where the Walkable Urban Code is supported in South Mountain.
Committee Member Viera stated that a mobility plan is still needed.
Chair Daniels stated that parking has already been lost due to the light rail and bike
lanes and now the parking reduction will eliminate even more of the already limited
parking. Chair Daniels refuted a letter that stated an uncovered parking space costs a
developer $10,000 and a covered parking space $35,000 to $55,000 and explained the
actual cost is $2,000 to $2,500 for an uncovered parking space and $10,000 for a
Page 573
covered parking space. Chair Daniels explained that apartments will charge what they
can, stated that rents do not go down, and explained apartment rates are based on
rates in the surrounding area.
Committee Member Alvarez stated that the parking reductions should not be citywide,
but rather only areas near transit. Chair Daniels added she spent three hours a day on
the bus and had to walk home in the dark when she took transit for three weeks due to
issues with her vehicle. Committee Member Alvarez added that a 10 minute drive can
be a 60 minute transit ride.
Committee Member Viera stated that this proposal is creating more disparity and
mentioned that she and Committee Member Hare needed to leave earlier but this issue
is too important to leave without a vote. Chair Daniels reminded members of the
committee that meetings are until nine o’clock. Committee Member Hare stated she
cannot keep paying a babysitter so she can attend a volunteer job. Chair Daniels
reiterated that if quorum is lost a vote cannot be taken.
Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque stated that the parking reduction will
increase danger for people who will have to walk, especially people of color.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Cory Kincaid stated that one own experience should not be projected on others and
explained that 40% of Maricopa County residents do not have a car. Mr. Kincaid stated
that he had met with five builders over the last month and when the land cost is
incorporated into the calculation, structured parking costs more than $50,000 per stall.
Mr. Kincaid explained that one studio apartment is equivalent in cost to five structured
parking spaces and stated that the question is not how much rents will go down, but
rather how much will rents go up. Mr. Kincaid reiterated that the proposal is for parking
minimums not maximum and stated that developers will build what they need as a
development with no parking cannot get financed. Mr. Kincaid added that a lot of jobs
allow individuals to work remotely.
Committee Member Greathouse asked what the demographic are considered
residents in regard to the 40% figure of those who do not own a car. Mr. Kincaid stated
that the 40% was for the entirety of Maricopa County.
Committee Member Shepard stated that everyone subsidizes the light rail and the bus
system whether people use it or not.
Chair Daniels stated that while some people are working remotely, not everyone has
the luxury to work remotely, and the underserved population will be negatively impacted
by the text amendment. Chair Daniels agreed that parking garage spaces are more
expensive and stated that the committee has been pushing to get a text amendment to
allow the Walkable Urban Code, which includes existing parking reductions, to be
Page 574
utilized in the South Central TOD Community Plan area, so she is surprised the citywide
parking reduction text amendment has been brought to the committee first.
Mr. Valencia explained that the text amendment to the Baseline Area Overlay District to
allow for the Walkable Urban Code to be utilized will be maximized by the parking
reduction text amendment and stated it is unfortunate the parking reduction came first,
but he believed the parking reduction text amendment was also initiated first.
Chair Daniels stated she would like to have the Walkable Urban Code allowed in the
South Central TOD area and in the meantime commercial parking should be reduced.
Chair Daniels added that she thought this proposal would cause a fair housing
discrimination lawsuit to be brought against the City.
Committee Member Jackson asked if the purpose of the parking reduction was to
allow more units to be built. Ms. Gomes summarized the proposal, stated that
affordable developments will not be able to get funding unless the project is near transit
and in close to employment, spoke about the Infill Development District’s transit
availability, and spoke about the transit investment in locations where the Walkable
Urban Code is allowed. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the proposal is for parking
minimums, not maximum and explained that the organizations that provide funding will
require different parking ratios depending on who is being served. Ms. Gomes explained
that the parking reductions are based on ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) data,
summarized how data is collected, and explained that the proposed citywide parking
ratio requires more parking spaces than the ITE data would suggest Chair Daniels
stated that in her time working with apartment complexes she has never seen a
multifamily parking lot not full in the evening. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the ITE data are
nighttime counts.
Committee Member Coleman asked if many variances had been requested to reduce
parking requirements. Ms. Gomes stated that variances can be pursued to reduce
parking requirements, but that adds time and costs more money.
Chair Daniels stated that a slum lord will build the minimum amount of parking to take
advantage of the underserved communities and stated that people do not have the time
use light rail as much as people expected.
Committee Member Greathouse stated that Mr. Kincaid made a great point that the
parking reduction is for the minimum number of required parking spaces, not the
maximum and stated that providing less parking will save a lot of money. Chair Daniels
stated that the money saved will not translate into greater affordability of units.
Committee Member Viera stated that this is a food desert and walking a mile in 117-
degree weather to get groceries will not be sustainable.
Chair Daniels reiterated that Arizona Senate Bill 1117, which included ADUs and a
parking reduction, had failed.
Page 575
Committee Member Jackson asked why the parking reduction is proposed. Ms.
Gomes stated that the parking reduction drives down the cost to provide housing.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Committee Member Shepard made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y.
Committee Member Viera seconded the motion.
VOTE
11-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members
Alvarez, Coleman, F. Daniels, Hare, Jackson, Roque, Shepard, Smith, Viera,
Greathouse, and T. Daniels in favor and Committee Members and opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Page 576
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z- TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 7-2-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Committee member Saundra Cole left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to
10 members.
Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric showed a
comparison of current and proposed requirements as part of the text amendment for
Citywide multifamily, affordable housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.
Questions from Committee:
Sandra Oviedo asked about commercial parking. Sarah Stockham, staff, replied that
the only proposed changes were for multifamily projects.
Sandra Oviedo asked about the ADU’s. Ms. Stockham mentioned the parking
requirement reductions only applied to multifamily residential.
Melissa Acevedo asked why the text amendment was being proposed. Ms. Stockham
said this was part of the City Council directive to find ways to address the housing
shortages.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 577
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Public Comments:
Larry Whitesell with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix spoke on their
position for the text amendment and identified items they found as problems with the
amendment. Mr. Whitesell said Phoenix is unique and is very spread out and a plan to
reduce parking for a city which does not have reliable public transportation will have
problems. Mr. Whitesell had suggestions for improvements to the proposed text
amendment. Mr. Whitesell expressed that it should not be based on the price of the
units but only should be based on proximity to public transportation. Mr. Whitesell also
believed the size of the unit should not be based on the parking calculations. Mr.
Whitesell felt that 1.5 parking spaces is the standard calculation for a one or two
bedroom and felt the infill development district should not be given a parking reduction
but a density bonus. Mr. Whitesell stated the Walkable Urban Code parking requirement
should never be zero and there always should be some parking. Mr. Whitesell said this
does not accommodate ADA and people living in the Walkable Urban Code areas who
have guests. Mr. Whitesell asked the committee to deny the text amendment entirely or
amend per the recommendations he provided.
Jackie Rich said she agreed with Mr. Whitesell and gave an example of how long it
would take to get to the community center by bicycle or bus versus by car.
Staff Response:
Sarah Stockham, staff, stated this is a reduction in the minimum requirements but
would not mean a developer cannot provide more parking. Ms. Stockham added that
affordable housing is based on HUD and to qualify applicants would need to be verified
by the Housing Department.
Motion:
Chris Demarest made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Ken Dubose
seconded the motion.
Vote:
7-2-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Acevedo, Battle, Demarest, DuBose, Fostino, Valenzuela, Chair Derie in favor;
Committee Members Barba and Norgaard opposed, and Committee Member Oviedo
abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 578
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 5-4
One member of the public registered to speak on this item, and one member of the
public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.
VPC DISCUSSION:
STAFF PRESENTATION
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide multifamily,
affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable Urban Code
projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required passenger
loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Trilese DiLeo asked what “affordable” units meant in the proposal.
Matteo Moric said the Housing Department would verify if a project was providing
affordable units.
Al Field wanted to know if the information applied to only affordable housing units.
Matteo Moric said it would be for multifamily housing citywide.
Trilese DiLeo said there would be a reduction of parking in the affordable units.
Matteo Moric said the WU code properties were mostly along light rail and transit
corridors.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 579
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Ricardo Romero said always what comes up the zoning projects is traffic or parking
concerns. Mr. Romero said it’s a changing world we live in.
Matteo Moric said the City looked at the requirements per the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) and the city would require more parking than what that prescribes.
James Sutphen explained the City of Phoenix was over 500 square miles and
wondered about areas like Metro Center and its impacts.
Gregory Freeman provided clarification that the text amendment would not allow
development to lower their parking below the minimum requirement and developers
could provide more, as there would be no caps.
Matteo Moric confirmed this was correct.
Trilese DiLeo said the developer would not be providing less than their required
parking but would still look at market conditions to potentially provide more than what is
required.
Al Field said this was another effort to create a 15 minute city. Mr. Field expressed that
developers reduce the size of the parking and the number of parking spaces and felt
this was an instance of the government’s desire to move you into public transit.
Ozzie Virgil agreed with Al Field and was concerned the size of parking cannot even
open the door of a vehicle. Mr. Virgil noted there was a parking problem at 35th Avenue
and Union Hills where residents have a second vehicle and only one designated for it.
Mr. Virgil indicated there were problems with on street parking. Mr. Virgil also expressed
concerns that developers do what will make more money and would build more units
with less parking. Mr. Virgil felt it was okay for downtown where there is more public
transit. Mr. Virgil felt once you let this reduction happen you will not get it back.
Trilese DiLeo said she used to be the President of the HOA for the complex Ozzie
Virgil was speaking of. Ms. DiLeo said it has ample parking but did not have driveways
on the houses that were built. Ms. DiLeo added one thing developers want is to put
more units on the property and this would be a more creative method to cut cost. Ms.
DiLeo added that when you create a supply and demand problem you would have
communities like LA and New York. If not like those communities she felt we would
need to do something different.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sandy Grunow said she was co-chair of a neighborhood association. Ms. Grunow
referenced a 2nd part of concerns for this text amendment. Ms. Grunow mentioned one
size fits all is not appropriate for a city of 517 square miles and felt it should not be
based on rental rates. Ms. Grunow noted that it might be appropriate for Downtown
Code, Walkable Urban Code or transit-oriented districts but not city wide. Ms. Grunow
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 580
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
identified a concern with visibility triangles and expressed that base parking
requirements should not be reduced lower than 1.5 spaces per unit. And Ms. Grunow
stated she wanted infill development be given 10% density bonus vs. a parking
reduction.
Jackie Rich stated some parts of the city are harder to get to than others and by driving
it took 30 minutes to get to the meeting and that included a coffee stop. Ms. Rich added
it would take two hours and it would have required being outside for at least one hour.
Ms. Rich said the proposed text amendment assumes people can park on the street
and that will not cause any problems. Ms. Rich added that the text amendment
assumes fewer people need handicap parking and it would similarly reduce the number
of handicap spaces, and it assumes lower income people need fewer cars than medium
or higher end.
Sarah Stockham said the visibility triangles were regulated by the City Code and that
would not be changed.
MOTION:
Trilese DiLeo motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per staff
recommendation. Gregory Freeman seconded the motion.
VOTE:
4 – 5, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y failed with Committee Members
DiLeo, Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney in favor. Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen and
Virgil opposed.
Al Field tagged onto what Jackie Rich said about waiting out in the heat. Mr. Field
added the police department is overwhelmed by policing the bus stops. Mr. Field felt
with the text amendment the city was trying to force people to eliminate cars and force
public transportation on them was not a good idea.
Ricardo Romero believed the city is not prepared for this change in the transportation
system.
Trilese DiLeo said there are people who do not have vehicles, and have an option to
buy a vehicle and this option will provide greater flexibility to a developer. Ms. DiLeo
said its more needed in an affordable housing unit versus a luxury apartment. Ms. DiLeo
felt this would take people off the streets and have a snow ball effect and this is a small
piece of it. Ms. DiLeo added that most zoning cases come with concerns of traffic and
she said she did not understand why people were concerned with less cars.
Susan Herber spoke against the motion. Ms. Herber felt this was idealistic and not
practical except for the affordable housing aspect.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 581
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Ozzie Virgil felt the reduction in parking would work in some areas and not others,
there’s no real fix-all and believed will realistically people would have to drive out here.
Mr. Virgil could not believe it took like three hours to get to the airport on public transit
from his area.
Gregory Freeman noted the parking reduction would not work for all. Mr. Freeman said
there is a development in Tempe called the Cul-de-Sac which does not have parking
and includes not only younger but older residents without cars. Mr. Freeman said he
wanted the city to have the option.
Trilese DiLeo said it would be important to vote on a denial in order to get a
recommendation.
MOTION
Ozzie Virgil motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. James Sutphen seconded
the motion.
VOTE
5-4, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee Members
Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen, and Virgil in favor. Committee Members DiLeo,
Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 582
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.
Staff Presentation:
Christopher DePerro, staff, shared the parking reductions proposed, noting that the
parking ratios were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual,
which contains about three decades worth of actual parking counts for multifamily
across North America. Mr. DePerro displayed an example of market-rate and affordable
multifamily development City-wide of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom
units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be, noting that
the requirement is a minimum and not a maximum. Mr. DePerro mentioned that many
multifamily projects find out they are a few parking spaces short after going through Site
Planning and accounting for open space, retention, and other required items that take
up space on a site, and it would have been easier to get through the process if the
parking requirement was a little bit less. Mr. DePerro added that affordable housing has
either State or federal money and must qualify through all sorts of programs,
commitments, covenants and other items. Mr. DePerro stated that there is a lot of
vetting that goes on for affordable housing developments in order for them to qualify as
an affordable housing development, such as proximity to light rail, and the parking
reduction would be handled as the affordable housing program prescribes. Mr. DePerro
then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites
zoned WU Code. Mr. DePerro concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.
Questions from Committee:
None.
Public Comments:
Jack Leonard, member with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP),
architect, and former member of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
(VPC) and Encanto VPC, stated that he does not think this text amendment was
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 583
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
thought out well enough. Mr. Leonard stated that he believes the existing parking
requirements are realistic. Mr. Leonard stated that the proposed parking reductions are
a drastic change. Mr. Leonard noted that there is about a half a mile between his home
and the nearest bus stop near 16th Street and Northern Avenue, and his office is at
16th Street and Thomas Road, but it is too hot during the summer to make that half mile
trip to the bus stop. Mr. Leonard stated that Phoenix is car-dependent and that there are
certain areas in the City where parking can be reduced, but not the majority of the City.
Mr. Leonard added that there are too many holes in the text amendment and would
leave neighbors of multifamily developments suffering because of all the vehicles that
will be parked in their neighborhood. Mr. Leonard stated that this text amendment
should not be getting rushed through and it should be looked at more thoroughly.
Neal Haddad, member with NCGP, concurred that this text amendment is a drastic
change. Mr. Haddad stated that six VPCs that have met so far have all denied this text
amendment and they would ask the North Gateway VPC to do the same. Mr. Haddad
concurred that this text amendment has not been thought out, and that parking
reductions would be appropriate in the downtown area and urban core and corridor
areas, but not City-wide. Mr. Haddad added that he does not believe it would be unfair
for the City to reach out to certain neighborhood organizations, noting that people likely
do not believe it is unfair that the members of the North Gateway VPC were appointed
to the Committee. Mr. Haddad stated that people are appointed to many committees
throughout the City, and that they are appointed because of their knowledge and
because the elected officials know the committee members and know their community.
Mr. Haddad added that citizens could have been appointed to a stakeholder group for
this text amendment, noting that it was mentioned before that the City Council did reach
out to certain stakeholders for their opinions and input. Mr. Haddad asked that the
Committee deny this text amendment.
Staff Response to Public Comment:
None.
Discussion:
Chair Julie Read stated that the North Gateway VPC primarily deals with multifamily
development, and that she is not supportive of this text amendment. Chair Read stated
that if minimum parking spaces are reduced for multifamily, it would be detrimental to
their area, because they do not have any mass transit and are not getting any mass
transit anytime soon. Chair Read recommended that this text amendment be denied.
Jeff Johnson stated that he looked at the top zip codes for Phoenix that have the most
cars and found that they are in the North Gateway Village. Mr. Johnson stated that
Phoenix is tied for fourth for the top cities with the most cars. Mr. Johnson mentioned
that a possible solution would be for developers to construct parking garages so there is
less parking spread out over an area. Mr. Johnson stated that he is against this
proposal.
Shannon Simon stated that she was curious why the text amendment was not written
more like the WU Code to reflect the areas where it would be more appropriate to have
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 584
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
parking reductions. Ms. Simon stated that people need to have a car in the North
Gateway Village and that she cannot support this text amendment.
Mr. DePerro stated that the direction came from the City Council to look at a nominal
reduction City-wide and to tier the rest down based on areas they are located in.
MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Vice Chair Michelle Ricart motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr.
Johnson seconded the motion.
VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
6-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members
French, Johnson, Krieger, Simon, Ricart and Read in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 585
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
REVISED
Date of VPC Meeting July 18, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation:
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms.
Gomes described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily
development and affordable multifamily development and further described the
proposed parking requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable
Urban Code.
Questions from the Committee:
None.
Public Comment:
Dan Kcocke stated that Arizona State University had conducted a study that concluded
that 10 percent of the entire city is utilized by parking. Mr. Kcocke noted that asphalt has
contributed to the urban heat island effect within the city. Mr. Kcocke noted that the
excessive parking requirements lead to higher construction costs for all development. Mr.
Kcocke added that the current parking requirements impact the developer, renters, and
the city. Mr. Kcocke stated that the hundred of miles of road construction led to higher
costs to individuals and parking does not contribute to property taxes. Mr. Kcocke noted
that renters are not represented in the committee and the parking reduction would be one
piece of the large issue regarding infrastructure and housing affordability. Mr. Kcocke
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 586
stated that parking minimums were introduced in the development 70 years ago and
added that the city has drastically changed since then. Mr. Kcocke concluded his comment
by supporting the text amendment.
Jack Leonard stated that Phoenix is a vehicle driven society. Mr. Leonard noted that bus
ridership has declined and that the hot weather does not help promote public
transportation. Mr. Leonard added that flip developers do not care about affordability and
will reduce their parking. Mr. Leonard noted that the current parking requirements are not
complicated, and the different categories allow for reasonable parking. Mr. Leonard stated
that the reduction in parking and an increase in density would not help alleviate sprawling.
Mr. Leonard added that people renting in affordable housing developments still need
parking. Mr. Leonard voiced his disagreement for the text amendment.
Neal Haddad voiced his agreement with Jack Leonard. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix
does not have the public transit capacity to support the reduction. Mr. Haddad noted that
public transportation times are not efficient. Mr. Haddad stated that the reduction of
parking would help increase housing affordability.
Leezah Sun noted that there have been some city and state initiatives to increase public
infrastructure. Ms. Sun noted that in a high-density area, a reduction of parking could be
beneficial. Mr. Kcocke noted that affordable housing needs to have high tax credits and
that is achieved by being adjacent to public transit. Mr. Kcocke noted that car maintenance
can negatively affect renters. Mr. Kcocke added that the reduction of parking can lead to
more amenities being accessible.
Committee Discussion:
Chair Lisa Perez noted that there is only one affordable housing project in the Estrella
Village. Chair Perez noted that there are no restaurants, amenities, bus shelters, or other
forms of public transit in Estrella. Chair Perez stated that the blanket text amendment does
not apply to all villages. Chair Perez added that a lot of items have not been considered to
support the text amendment.
Parris Wallace stated that affordable housing developments should not be treated
differently when compared to market rate developments. Ms. Wallace voiced her support
for the text amendment. Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking could lead to more
open space and amenities. Ms. Wallace added that she supports more amenities and
affordable rental rates in exchange for less parking.
Renee Dominguez stated that multiple children require more vehicles. Ms. Dominguez
noted that some families do not let children walk in Estrella. Ms. Wallace added that her
children walk in the neighborhood and if a family has one vehicle, then everyone would
walk. Ms. Dominguez noted that the village doesn’t have the amenities.
Dan Rush voiced his opposition to the text amendment. Mr. Rush stated that it was
counterintuitive to suggest more housing in exchange for parking when most
developments do not have enough parking.
Jennifer Ayala noted that she has lived in an affordable housing development and
employment opportunities were not in close proximity to the development. Ms. Ayala
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 587
added that limiting parking would not help neighborhoods. Ms. Ayala stated that affordable
housing developments did not have enough parking.
Ms. Wallace stated that the text amendment would not eliminate parking. Ms. Wallace
added that the text amendment would make a difference for the future.
Kristine Morris stated that she was opposed to the text amendment. Ms. Morris added
that it places environmental and social issues on the less fortunate.
Motion:
Dan Rush made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Bill Barquin seconded
the motion.
Vote:
8-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members Ayala,
Barquin, Dominguez, Morris, Rush, Sanou, Serrette, and Perez in favor and Committee
Members Wallace in opposition.
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 588
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 19, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with direction
VPC Vote 12-1-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Four members of the public submitted speaker cards with all wishing to speak. Two
indicated they are in favor, one opposed, and one in favor and opposition.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Klimek, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. He presented the staff
recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Larson asked for clarification regarding the guest and resident
parking calculation. Mr. Klimek tried to clarify.
Committee Member Veidmark expressed concern over the prospect of an apartment
complex with no parking.
Committee Member Matthews asked staff to confirm that a housing development
without parking would be permitted today if an applicant sought a planned unit
development. Mr. Klimek confirmed.
Committee Member O’Connor asked how the mixed-use reduction in the WU Code
would be applied if this text amendment were approved. Mr. Klimek responded that
the text amendment applies only to multifamily uses and that, in a mixed-use
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 589
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 2
development with commercial and multifamily, a blend of commercial and multifamily
parking standards would be used to calculate the requirement. He added that he is not
certain how the by-right reduction in WU Code mixed-use projects would interplay with
this proposed amendment.
Committee Member Gore asked how parking deters investment in affordable housing
and how the change would support housing construction. Mr. Klimek responded that
parking is expensive to construct and occupies much of the total site area which
thereby reduces the number of units that can be constructed on the site. By reducing
costs and increasing available land area, more units may become viable.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ms. Sandy Grunow expressed concern that this reduction is inappropriate city-wide
because there is limited public transit, that the proposed text amendment may impact
visibility triangles at intersections which is a safety issue, and that it is unfair to base
parking requirements on resident incomes. She added that developers will not provide
more parking than required by code.
Ms. Jackie Rich expressed that parking reductions happen all the time and this text
amendment is therefore not necessary, that there is not adequate transit, and that
many individuals who reside in apartments will not give up their cars. She added that
on street parking therefore infringes upon a pedestrian’s ability to safely walk in an area
without sidewalks and the proposed reduction for affordable housing feel punitive. She
acknowledged that some reduction may be appropriate but stated that the requirement
should never be allowed to “go to zero.” She added that she would like more
neighborhood engagement for text amendments and that the proposed text
amendment would allow for developments to provide no ADA parking.
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez expressed support for the amendment, noted that it doesn’t go
far enough, and explained that both parking requirements and auto-oriented
development patterns are costly to renters and builders. The parking requirements
make housing less affordable and the also contribute to the urban heat island effect.
She concluded by stating that the requirements were arbitrary when originally
developed.
Mr. Dan Klocke introduced himself as an affordable housing developer and expressed
his support for the amendment. He cited an ASU study which found that approximately
50 square miles of the city is paved which contributes to the urban heat island effect.
Regarding the impact on affordability, he shared a hypothetical example to
demonstrate how requiring additional parking beyond that which will be used adds cost
to the developer and consumes land area which, together, can make an affordable
housing project infeasible. He explained that many affordable housing projects are
operating on negative profit margins and therefore require multiple financial sources to
make the project work financially. He added that the additional land area required to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 590
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 3
provide parking adds to the overall infrastructure cost and long-term maintenance
burden which is the responsibility of the City of Phoenix. He concluded by stating that
the VPC just voted 14-0 to allow Accessory Dwelling Units without any additional
parking.
STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Klimek thanked the audience for their comments. The proposed amendment
includes minimums, rather than maximum, parking requirements which allows a
developer to provide more parking than required if they desire; he added that he has
seen developers provide more parking than the minimum for projects where they
believe it will improve the marketability of their products. The proposed amendment is
based on empirical data that is used broadly throughout the field of land use and
transportation planning.
There is no way for staff to significantly reduce parking requirements administratively.
Only two procedural pathways exist to reduce parking: 1) to propose a planned unit
development with custom development standards and commit to the full 6 – 9 month
rezoning process; and 2) to request a variance from the zoning ordinance through a
public hearing process but he cautioned that this process requires that a Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer determines there is a hardship related to the physical
characteristics of the lot, and he noted this is uncommon for parking requests.
Regarding ADA parking requirements, he added that this proposed text amendment
does not override ADA which is a federal law and that ADA compliant parking spaces
will continue to be required.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
Committee Member Matthews clarified that ADA requires a portion of all facilities
provided to be accessible so a development that provides no parking would not be
required to provide accessible spaces; however, if some parking is provided then a
share of that would need to comply with ADA. Mr. Klimek agreed and apologized for
the mistake.
Committee Member Matthews stated that he is in support of the request and that
these are parking minimums, not maximums, so developers are free to provide more
parking than required. He stated that most developers will not build projects with zero
parking and that the possibility is being overblown. This will allow a greater variety of
housing options such as more affordable units or car-free options that are currently
restricted by existing parking requirements.
Committee Member Gore stated that 9 percent of the population being car-free is
insignificant and should not drive the proposed text amendment which allows
developments without any parking. He added that it would be helpful if the city could
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 591
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 4
forecast the impact of this amendment.
Committee Member O’Connor stated that he is not supportive of the request because
Phoenix is not a walkable city and there are other programs, such as GPLETS, to
support affordable housing construction.
Committee Member Perez stated that she is torn but expressed concern that reducing
parking requirements would only have a limited impact on the housing crisis. She
added that a different housing requirement for low-income populations feels punitive.
Committee Member Krentz stated that this text amendment would provide the
opportunity to develop housing with fewer costs and design constraints mandated by
the city. He added that the development community will respond to actual forecasted
parking demands because it only makes business sense to develop something that will
be marketable. At present, staff does not have flexibility to allow for innovation by the
free market.
Committee Member O’Hara stated that he left the Information Only presentation in
June as a “no” but reconsidered the proposal through the lens of Member Krentz and
he indicated that he is now closer to a “yes.” He stated that the market will respond to
demand based on the context of a site.
Committee Member Matthews stated that 10 percent of households not having
access to a car is not insignificant and that providing 10 percent of all developments as
an affordable would far exceed the present construction pattern. The margins for
affordable development are slim and often negative so any reduced cost or increased
yield will have a direct and positive impact on affordable housing production. He stated
that he lives in Moon Valley and frequently uses transit to get downtown and back; he
cautioned his colleagues from assuming everyone is the same as them in their
transportation preferences and socioeconomic needs. Committee Member Gore
agreed that 9% is not trivial but stated that the city should also be building
transportation infrastructure such as transit and bike lanes.
Committee Member Veidmark asked why staff is proposing that no parking be
provided for affordable housing. Mr. Klimek responded that it is in response to many
conversations with affordable housing developers regarding the narrow margins and
empirical data showing that affordable housing generates a lower demand for parking
than other types of housing. He added that the proposed amendment is intended to
provide flexibility by removing a mandate but noted that these are minimum
requirements rather than maximums.
Committee Member Sommacampagna stated that the presentation did not touch on
rideshare which is increasingly augmenting public transportation and reducing the need
for private automobiles. As an infill developer focused on missing middle housing, he
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 592
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 5
noted that parking is a costly burden and that GPLETs are not viable due to their
complexity and cost. He expressed support for the proposal to promote more small-
scale housing production which benefits most from parking reductions.
Committee Member Alauria noted the amendment makes sense but expressed
concern that the proposal is not based on Phoenix data.
Committee Member Gore stated that just because there are not many pedestrian /
transit commuters in Moon Valley it does not mean that they have the right amount of
surface parking. He asked Member Krentz if there is a significant likelihood of 300-unit
complexes providing zero parking and, conversely if it is more likely that small project
would provide no parking if allowed. Committee Member Krentz agreed.
Chair Jaramillo shared that zero parking is being treated like the gold standard of
what developers will ultimately provide but noted that this will be a minority of total
projects. Affordable housing requires subsidies, and most will still provide some parking
in response to the forecasted needs of the tenants. In 2022, only 16 LIHTC were
issued in Arizona which is too little to meet demand; by reducing cost and space
burdens, more affordable housing projects will become viable. He concluded by stating
that this is not the solution to the housing crisis but is a part of a solution.
MOTION:
Committee Member O’Hara moved to approve the request per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Matthews seconded the motion.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT:
Committee Member Perez proposed a friendly amendment to “direct staff and the city
council to explore additional methods to help with the production of affordable housing.
Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Matthews both agreed to the
friendly amendment. The motion was revised to include the friendly amendment.
DISCUSSION:
Committee Member Alauria stated that people will continue to use cars but that she
wants to remove excessive parking.
Committee Member Matthews stated that this is a simple risk versus reward scenario
and that the risk that both overblown and acceptable. The risk is that the city will see a
problematic number of zero parking affordable housing complexes is unlikely but would
mean that an abundance of much needed affordable housing projects are being
constructed.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 593
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 6
Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Perez thanked Member Krentz
for the developer’s perspective.
VOTE: 12-1-1, motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with the
direction provided by Committee Member O’Hara, passes with Committee Members,
Gore, Krentz, Larson, Matthews, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Perez, Sommacampagna,
Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Jaramillo in favor; O’Connor in opposition; and Alauria in
abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 594
ATTACHMENT E
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 24, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
5 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support.
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.
Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide
multifamily, affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.
Questions from Committee:
Vice Chair Fisher asked what data were being used to determine that people living in
low income housing do not have cars. Mr. Moric said that there was no cap on
parking but there was a minimum requirement, and developers could provide at least
the minimum but more if they felt the market demand required it.
Toni Broberg asked why the city was doing this by reducing the number of parking
spaces.
Vice Chair Fisher felt this text amendment was more about density than cost
savings, and that we’d be building more rooftops. Mr. Fisher felt we are not building
enough than is necessary. Mr. Moric said the Zoning Ordinance would still require
development standards for items such as density, lot coverage, setbacks, etc.
Mr. Clifford Mager shared he had no confidence that developers would exceed
minimum requirements if they could monetize more units.
Chair Gasparro said there is a desire to have sufficient parking as a developer.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 595
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Mike Maloney noted there were rules in place which were developed over time. Mr.
Maloney asked where these new numbers are coming from. Mr. Moric said it was
determined from the ITE manual and developments in Phoenix.
Ms. Broberg asked if staff researched other cities that have implemented parking
reductions.
Elena Pritchette shared her experience that more and more cities in her travels are
using alternative parking solutions such as automated garages.
Vice Chair Fisher referenced Proposition 400, stating he did not believe legislature
would increase public transit to compensate for the reduction in the parking
requirement.
Mr. Mager asked about if the new rules would apply to the development that was
already permitted.
Mr. Fisher asked on clarity if the reduction would be citywide. Mr. Moric said the 1.25
spaces per unit would apply to citywide. Mr. Fisher said many places in the city were
not designed for street overflow in parking.
Public Comments:
Mr. Dan Klocke said he had been working in affordable housing for many years, and
45% of Phoenicians are renters. Mr. Klocke noted that 8.4% or 47,000 households of
Phoenix do not have cars, about 35% own one car, and almost half have one car or
less. Mr. Klocke shared that the average one bedroom rental in Phoenix is $1300,
and this would chip away at some of the issues we face with affordability. Mr. Klocke
shared that 10% of the city is paved, and shared an example of an affordable housing
project, and with this proposal, would save almost $500,000 in costs, which would
also help develop smaller pieces of land for affordable housing.
Mr. Larry Whitesell stated he would like the committee to reject the proposal, but if
they felt inclined to recommend approval the parking rate should be increased to 1.5
spaces and should be based on affordability.
Mr. Neal Haddad said he was with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
and stated there are two types of developers: those who buy, build and hold and
those who flip properties. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix is 517 square miles and is
unique, so parking standards for other cities should not apply to Phoenix.
Mr. Ryan Boyd from the Urban Phoenix Project shared that this text amendment
comes down to cost, there are those who do not have a choice on using a car or not,
and that this would provide flexibility for new housing developments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 596
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez said she was in support of the text amendment, she came to
Phoenix 20 years ago without a car and shared her experience with having limited
vehicles for her family and using public transportation.
Ms. Abbey Tomich said she is unable to afford a vehicle and rides her bike instead
during which time she sees all the extra parking spaces in apartments.
Mr. Derek Tomich said he rides his bike everywhere and he sees parking lots that
are always empty which he felt was a waste of space and the parking surface
increases the urban heating effect, and there is no thing such as free parking. Mr.
Tomich added this would not add to cars on the street or increase street parking and
there would almost never be zero parking even if the requirement was zero parking.
Mr. Mager requested for clarification if the excess parking he observed was for
commercial or residential development. Mr. Tomich stated his observations were
regarding residential.
Vice Chair Fisher asked Mr. Tomich if he could, would he buy a car. Mr. Tomich
stated ideally he would not buy a car and felt if more people used public transit, the
public transit system would get improved.
Staff Response:
None.
Discussion:
Vice Chair Fisher asked Dan Klocke if we have an affordable housing problem in
Phoenix because we have too many cars or because affordable housing does not
stay affordable. Mr. Klocke said we have massive affordable housing problem and
we make decisions based on our smaller communities, and said this would chip away
at the problem.
Vice Chair Fisher said he was having a hard time accepting that the affordable
housing issue is a parking problem.
Ms. Broberg stated her concern the reduction of parking would add to the congestion
on the streets which she further clarified as parking on the streets.
Ms. Broberg asked Chair Gasparro if the developer would reinvest any cost savings
from not providing additional parking spaces. Chair Gasparro replied that with a
reduction in parking requirements a smaller site could be developed, and this not only
benefits the developer but also the City.
Mr. Mager asked if $5000 in cost savings from a parking reduction moved the needle.
Chair Gasparro replied yes, those saving impact a project.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 597
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Suzanne Sharer said there already is a shortage on parking and developers would
be the only ones benefiting and it is a backhanded way to force people to give up their
cars. Ms. Sharer said to pay for extra parking in their complexes would be a burden
on families.
Vice Chair Fisher felt it was a coupon for the developer, it is an incentive for more
developer profit, and he could be supportive of this for affordable housing projects.
Ms. Broberg said it is going to incentivize people to live in different places based on
what they value if they want additional parking and asked if this was part of the grand
scheme of Housing Phoenix Plan.
Chair Gasparro mentioned this is just part of the solution for a bigger plan.
Mr. Mager felt there was a lack of empirical data.
Motion:
Vice Chair Darin Fisher motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Suzanne
Sharer seconded the motion.
Vote:
6-2, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer, Fisher in favor; and Broberg and Gasparro
in opposition.
Motion No. 2 (Advisory)
Vice Chair Fisher made a second motion to provide direction to the Planning
Commission and City Council that while he rejects the proposal as a whole, there are
elements of the proposal he supports.
Vice Chair Fisher motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y with
modifications to remove the parking reduction for market-rate multifamily residential
citywide, and approve the reduction for affordable housing projects, and sites within
the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code. Toni Broberg
seconded the motion.
Vote No. 2 (Advisory)
6-2, advisory motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-y with modifications
passes with committee members Broberg, Maloney, Meier, Sharer, Fisher and
Gasparro in support; and Mager and Pritchette opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 598
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 25, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-6
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Eight members of the public register to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Shultz discussed the urbanization of Phoenix and stated that the
text amendment makes sense in areas that have urbanized.
Committee Member Williams clarified that the reduction is for parking minimums not
maximums and provides more flexibility. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the proposal is to
reduce parking minimums not maximums and discussed how lenders require a
minimum number of parking spaces for different types of developments.
Committee Member Harris asked how the required number of ADA parking spaces is
affected by the parking reduction. Mr. Rogers stated that the number of required ADA
parking spaces is based on the number of regular spaces provided.
Committee Camp stated that the reduction will help with the urban heat island effect,
help promote walkability, and help with transit-oriented development.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 599
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5
Committee Member Malkoon asked if a minimum number of ADA parking spaces will
be provided if there is no regular parking provided. Ms. Stockham stated that if no
parking is provided ADA spaces will not be required, but most projects will not provide
no parking.
Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated concerns about the low-income parking
reduction being discriminatory.
Committee Member Smith stated that a car is needed for low-income individuals’
economic mobility, stated it is unlikely that low-income people will use food delivery
services, and stated that the proposal does not consider the people.
Committee Member Solorio explained that the text amendment allows flexibility to
projects that serve specialty populations, discussed how lower parking minimums had
enabled developments to be built in other jurisdictions, and explained the text
amendment would eliminate the need for low-income developments to pursue parking
variances.
Committee Member Adams stated that City is removing a restrictive number, spoke
about dealing with ratios on her own professional projects, and stated that the parking
reduction would allow the number of parking spaces to be determined on a case-by-
case basis.
Committee Member Mulgado stated multifamily parking lots are full and most
households living in multifamily developments have multiple cars.
Committee Member Fitzgerald discussed walking in extreme heat, discussed a low-
income development that got variances for reduced parking and now rents parking at a
nearby church, and stated that developers wont pay for parking if they do not have too.
Committee Member Malkoon stated that the proposal will be good for developer
profits, spoke about his son who does not drive, spoke about his experience riding the
light rail where he spoke to woman who had a 2.5 hour commute to and from work, and
asked where visitors will park.
Committee Member Solorio stated that banks will not loan money to projects that do
not provide any parking.
Committee Member Harris asked for clarification about where parking requirements
are proposed to be reduced to 0 parking spaces per unit. Committee Member Solorio
stated that parking requirements are proposed to be 0 parking spaces per unit in the
WU Code and for affordable housing. Mr. Rogers clarified that affordable unit parking
requirements are proposed to be reduced 50% citywide.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 600
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5
Committee Member Malkoon stated concerns about those struggling being taken
advantage of. Committee Member Solorio that 25% of parking spaces are always
open on projects he has worked on.
Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated that there are likely too many parking
spaces, but the minimum should not be zero. Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated
that he does not trust banks and builders to build parking, stated that cars can be
necessary to commute to well-paying jobs, and stated it is not that hard for
developments that serve special communities to get a variance.
Committee Member Keyser discussed other cities that have been successful with
parking reductions, spoke about rising rents, spoke about the need for personal vehicles
for those that are disabled, and spoke about the need for a parking study.
Committee Member Malkoon asked why luxury developments are not built for
affordable units, stated more money for affordable units is needed, and stated there
needs to be more public-government partnerships.
Committee Member Solorio stated that low-income developments have a fixed budget
and revenue, explained that less parking means more amenities, and spoke about a
failed variance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sterling Sourk stated that potential residents will not move into a complex if there is no
parking and clarified the difference between parking minimums and maximums.
Abby Tomich explained that she rides her bike everyday because she cannot afford a
vehicle, explained that her mother rides the light rail to work everyday, stated that
excess parking is being valued over more affordable housing, and stated the text
amendment does not go far enough.
Derek Tomich explained that he rides his bike everywhere, explained that everywhere
he goes he see empty parking lots that contribute to the urban heat island effect, stated
10% of Phoenix is parking lots, explained that parking is subsidized by the prices of
goods and services, and reiterated that zero spaces required wont equate to zero
spaces provided.
Nicole Rodriguez stated she is in support of the text amendment, discussed parking
and heat, stated that the text amendment is the first step towards parking requirements
that will match demand, stated the text amendment will facilitate infill developments,
explained that parking can cost between $35,000 to $80,000 per stall, and explained the
origins of parking requirements. Ms. Rodriguez explained that she came to Phoenix
without a vehicle and her family now has one vehicle due to the medical costs from
taking care of others.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 601
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5
Wes Ballu stated that there is too much parking in Phoenix, stated that the proposal will
allow for flexibility, and stated this is the first step to making the City more walkable.
Dan Clocky stated that affordable housing is tax credit housing, stated that 87 parking
spaces costs well over half a million, and stated that budgets are capped so more
parking means less units.
Jackie Rich recounted a story told at the Estrella VPC were an individual who was
utilizing affordable housing was grateful parking was provided at her apartment
complex, explained reducing parking will not reduce the number of cars people own,
and added that the future of light rail depends on state legislature.
Neil Haddad stated that questionable people that buy, build, and flip developments are
why parking minimums are a thing, stated that Phoenix does not compare to other
cities, discussed the urban heat island effect and buildings, stated Phoenix is a car city,
explained that the state will not allow sales tax to be used for transit, and stated he
would like to see the studies the parking reductions are based on.
Chair Bryck confirmed that he had received the NCGP letter on July 14.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Committee Member Camp motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff
recommendation. Committee Member Shultz seconded the motion.
VOTE
9-6, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff recommendation passes
with Committee Members Adams, Camp, Ender, Harris, Sanchez, Shultz, Solorio,
Williams, and Bryck in favor and Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Fitzgerald,
Keyser, Malkoon, Mulgado, and Smith opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 602
ATTACHMENT F
Phoenix, Arizona
June 1, 2023
The meeting of the Phoenix Planning Commission was called to order by Acting
Chairman Emilio Gaynor at 6:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson
Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Commissioners present participated in the meeting both in-
person and virtually from a remote location.
Present: Commissioner Emilio Gaynor, (Acting Chairman)
Commissioner Ryan A. Boyd, (Acting Vice-Chairman)
Commissioner Marcia Busching (Virtual)
Commissioner Pete Gorraiz
Commissioner Gabriel Jaramillo (Virtual)
Commissioner Lachele Mangum
Commissioner Lisa Perez
Commissioner Shannon Simon
Absent: Commissioner Nico Howard, Chairman
Also
Present: Ms. Racelle Escolar, Planner Principal
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director, PDD
Mr. Greg Harmon, Planner I
Ms. Vikki Cipolla-Murillo, Secretary III/Council Reporter
At the request of Acting Chairman Emilio Gaynor, Ms. Racelle Escolar, Staff Liaison,
read the hybrid meeting introduction. She welcomed everyone to the Planning
Commission Hearing and stated that all attendees who were participating virtually and
requested to speak would remain muted until called on to speak. Speakers experiencing
audio issues were asked to switch their audio connection to have WebEx call them. She
stated that all individuals speaking virtually at the meeting tonight had contacted staff
within the required timeframe prior to the start of the meeting. Those who did not
contact staff, wishing to speak, were asked to contact her after the meeting to discuss
the next steps and future opportunities to speak regarding any items on the agenda.
She provided her contact information, via phone at 602-534-2864 and email at
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov, which was also listed on the bottom of the public meeting
notice for the meeting. She asked those attending the meeting from the Council
Chambers to complete a speaker card and provide it to one of the staff members.
***
Acting Chairman Gaynor asked Acting Vice-Chair Boyd to read the opening remarks.
***
Acting Chairman Gaynor asked the audience to follow the General Rules of Order for
the meeting:
Page 603
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023
16. INFORMATION ONLY: Z-TA-8-23-Y: Presentation and discussion regarding a
request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing.
Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that Item No. 16 is an information presentation
regarding Z-TA-8-23-Y, a request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and
affordable housing.
Ms. Tricia Gomes, the Deputy Director, presented this item.
Ms. Gomes stated that Z-TA-8-23-Y encompasses parking reductions for
affordable and multifamily housing, including parking reductions for multifamily
developments (City-wide), reductions for affordable housing (City-wide),
reductions for Infill Development District (IDD), and reductions for Walkable
Urban (WU) Code.
Ms. Gomes stated that currently multifamily parking requirements (City-wide) are
based on the number of bedrooms. The current requirement is 1.3 spaces per
efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 2 spaces per 3- or
more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of
number of bedrooms. When the required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 1.0 space per
each 3- or more bedroom unit. It is somewhat long and complex. Staff is trying to
reduce City-wide multifamily parking down to 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit,
regardless of number of bedrooms. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must
remain “unreserved”, and would not be assigned to any one unit. Anyone could
park there, whether they are a guest or another person living in the development.
She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units:
x Current Requirements: 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per dwelling units,
150 unreserved (part of total) @ 0.5 per dwelling unit.
x Proposed Requirements: 375 total spaces @ 1.25 per dwelling unit
113 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required.
Ms. Gomes stated that currently there is no differentiation for affordable
multifamily housing (City-wide). It would be the same parking counts that were
just discussed, per the number of bedrooms in that unit, proposing the same 1.25
calculation. Plus, for affordable housing, there is a 50% reduction, in addition.
She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, all qualifying as “affordable housing”:
x Current Requirements: (same as City-wide) 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per
dwelling unit and 150 unreserved (part of total @ 0.5 dwelling units.
x Proposed Requirements: (50% reduction) 188 total spaces @ 1.25 per
dwelling unit x 50% and 57 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required.
Page 604
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023
Ms. Gomes stated, within the Infill Development District (IDD), currently you can
only get a parking reduction for multifamily if you are counting on-street parking.
That is for the distance of your project adjacent to the right-of-way. If there is 100
feet of frontage on your property, divide that by 22 feet due to parallel parking,
and that is how many spaces you can count and how many can be reduced for
on-street parking.
For the proposed requirement within the Infill Development District, there is a
50% reduction off that 1.25 parking calculation. This area typically falls along or
near the transit areas, as well. She provided an example for a 300-unit
multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units. It is the same as the
affordable housing.
x Proposed Requirements: 188 spaces, @ 1.25 per dwelling unit x 50%
Ms. Gomes stated, for the Walkable Urban Code, the current requirement in the
Zoning Ordinance is 0.5 for market-rate housing per dwelling unit. You get an
additional 25% reduction when you are within a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) of
the light-rail station, or you get 10% if you are greater than a quarter of a mile
(1,320 feet) from the light-rail station.
The current multifamily parking requirement is with the 25 and 10 %. Staff is
proposing a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit parking requirement for those located
within the Walkable Urban Code. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must remain
“unreserved”, and not assigned to a particular unit or the leasing office. She
provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-
bedroom units.
x Current Requirements: 338 total spaces @ the 1.5 % for a 1- to 2-
bedroom vs. proposed text amendment
x Proposed Requirements: 150 total spaces @ 0.5 per dwelling unit
45 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required
Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable housing, Walkable Urban Code does have
provisions for affordable in the different transects. They are proposing ‘no parking
required within those transects’, for affordable housing within the Walkable Urban
Code. T3 is the only exception because it is very similar to a single-family
development. Multifamily is not allowed in that transect. She provided an
example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom
units, all affordable. There are no parking requirements.
x Current Requirements: (T5 transect example)150 total spaces @ 0.5 per
dwelling units and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required
x Proposed Requirements: (T5 transect example) 0 total spaces @ none
required and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required
Page 605
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023
Ms. Gomes stated, in response to that and understanding that passenger loading
zone requirements have been proposed in the Walkable Urban Code, people are
going to be coming to their homes and developments in a variety of different
ways, whether it is light-rail, ride-share, taxis, etc. The City wants to provide and
ensure that there is an area for that drop-off and pick-up for pedestrians
happening on the site.
Ms. Gomes stated that passenger loading zones are a new requirement for sites
zoned WU Code only. They provide designated area(s) for ride-share, pick-
up/drop-off, and personal delivery services (package delivery; meal delivery).
Loading zones are encouraged to locate on site but may be located on the street
when approved by the Street Transportation Department. This is difficult because
there must be room in the right-of-way, depending on the type of street. They are
looking for it to be provided onsite. Accessibility requirements apply per Federal
ADA regulations. The proposal is one passenger loading zone per 50 dwelling
units; so, depending on the number of units, there will be a larger space for a
larger passenger loading zone. Ms. Gomes displayed an example of what that
would look like. The minimum requirement is 23 feet for a parallel parking space
to be able to pull in and backing out of the space. Lastly, she provided upcoming
meeting dates:
x Planning Commission (information): June 2023
x Villages (information): June 2023
x Villages (action): July 2023
x Planning Commission (action): August 2023
x City Council Hearing: September 2023
Acting Chairman Gaynor asked if there were questions.
Commissioner Busching stated that there is a new movement going on to reduce
parking spaces. She asked where the numbers came from and if there were
comparisons done with other cities. She also asked if other cities have
experiences with these numbers. She wanted some background and history
behind the thinking of the numbers.
Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived at the 1.25 number in working with the
Traffic Department and looking at ITE data on suburban and urban developments
for a multifamily.
Commissioner Busching stated that she does not know what ITE is, and she
does not know where all the other parking reductions are, other than the 1.25.
Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived the 1.25 number from the initial review
with Traffic Department staff while looking at their manuel for typical demands for
parking, for these types of developments. Staff’s focus was to reduce the parking
to one space per unit. The 0.25 is for visitors and leasing. That is how they
derived the 1.25. They looked at demand and what they were trying to achieve,
regarding the number of parking spaces per unit.
Page 606
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023
Ms. Gomes stated that the 50%, reduction within their Infill Development District
today is an allowance that the developer can do. It is a 50% reduction, but it is
only counting those spaces on-street. The Street Transportation Department is
hearing a lot of push-back from communities to have on-street parking, which is
resulting in no longer providing the space for bike lanes or creating conflicts for
bike lanes. They looked at that. It is really to achieve two goals within the City: 1)
to provide the bike lanes, and 2) to offset the parking reduction onsite for
properties. By taking away or modifying those parking reductions for on-street, to
allow for those bike lanes, it is providing that parking reduction onsite. That is
where the 50% comes from.
Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable to zero, Walkable Urban Code, already had
a significant parking reduction. They were directed by City Council to look at
eliminating those parking requirements for affordable, because staff is trying to
focus on the items that are creating additional costs and challenges for affordable
developments.
Commissioner Busching thanked Ms. Gomes and said the information was very
helpful.
Acting Vice-Chairman Boyd stated that he was quite excited to hear this. ITE
stands for Institute of Transportation Engineers. He said it is not just the hippie
bike people, these are the full-on professional, do-all-the-fun traffic, people. He
wanted to add two important points of context. Firstly, these are the minimums.
Developers can and likely will still go above those minimums, as we see in
almost every project. This is just them not being penalized from a legal
perspective, if you wanted to try to do something like a cul-de-sac in Tempe, zero
parking for the units there. There are a few shared parking spots on their
development. It would not be possible in Phoenix without some creative zoning.
Secondly, there are, in fact, neighbors to the north. Prescott has one of these.
Work-force housing has a different parking ratio that is lower than their normal
parking ratio. Flagstaff has an incentive program for their affordable housing that
includes the reduction of parking. These are not new concepts. They are in
Arizona and have been in play before. He was excited to hear how this is going
to go through. It will be interesting to see how this debate proceeds.
Commissioner Perez asked if this goes through the process and gets approved
in September, if there would be a mad rush of all the cases that have been
approved, asking for variances to reduce their parking. Right now, they would all
be stipulated to certain parking spaces. She asked how that would work.
Ms. Gomes responded, if there are current stipulation requirements, whether it is
in a rezoning case or other like that, they would still have to adhere to those
requirements. If they got parking variances, there is a potential that the parking
variance is mute, because the Ordinance could require less. Those were the two
scenarios she could think of, now.
Page 607
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023
Commissioner Perez stated that they had required in the staff narrative that if it is
reduced, it would just automatically get reduced with it. She asked if she was
understanding correctly. She gave the example of building a multifamily with 200
required parking spaces. Under the new requirements, it would be less,
theoretically. She asked if she would be stuck with the 200, or if it would be
automatically less, or if she would have to get a variance to make it less.
Ms. Gomes respond that if this text amendment were to pass in September and
go to Council in October, it would be effective. So, anyone developing, could
utilize those requirements.
Acting Chairman Gaynor reminded the commissioners that this presentation was
only informational at this time. There were no further questions.
No action was necessary.
***
Page 608
ATTACHMENT G
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking Reductions for Affordable Housing)
Proposal: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for
affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J
(Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7,
Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications
to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking
Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single-
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for
passenger loading zones of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to modify
parking standards for affordable housing developments.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Attachment A of
the Staff Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 Information only. Canceled (no quorum).
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/24/2023 Denial. Vote: 6-2.
Alhambra 6/27/2023 Information only.
Alhambra 7/25/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-6.
Camelback East 6/6/2023 Information only.
Camelback East 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 14-1.
Central City 6/12/2023 Information only.
Central City 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-4.
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Deer Valley 7/13/2023 Denial. Vote: 5-4.
Desert View 6/6/2023 Information only.
Desert View 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-0.
Encanto 6/5/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Encanto 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-1.
Estrella 6/20/2023 Information only.
Estrella 7/18/2023 Denial. Vote: 8-1.
Laveen 6/12/2023 Information only.
Laveen 7/10/2023 Denial. Vote: 8-0.
Maryvale 6/14/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Maryvale 7/12/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-2-1.
North Gateway 6/8/2023 Information only.
North Gateway 7/13/2023 Denial. Vote: 6-0.
Page 609
North Mountain 6/21/2023 Information only.
North Mountain 7/19/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 12-1-1.
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 Information only.
Paradise Valley 7/10/2023 No quorum.
Paradise Valley 8/7/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications.
Vote: 14-0.
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 Information only.
Rio Vista 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 6/13/2023 Information only.
South Mountain 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications to adjust the citywide components to apply to
Alhambra, North Mountain, Encanto, Central City, and Camelback East villages, and
with the adjustment of the WU Code amount up to 0.65 (spaces per dwelling unit).
There was no second on the motion, therefore the motion failed.
There was discussion about the motion and potentially other motions.
Commissioner Busching made a MOTION that the item be sent back to staff for further
work with the notion that it would be brought back before the Planning Commission.
There was some discussion about what direction to provide, however there was no
second on the motion.
Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications regarding the following sections as listed in the Staff
Report:
x Section 1 (City wide multifamily parking requirements): Change from 1.25 spaces
per dwelling unit to 1.50 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 2 (City wide affordable housing parking reduction): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 3 (Infill Development District parking reduction): Approve as proposed.
x Section 4 (Walkable Urban Code parking requirements): Change from 0.50
spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 5 (Walkable Urban Code affordable housing parking requirements):
Delete proposed changes.
x Section 6 (Passenger loading zones within Walkable Urban Code): Approve as
proposed.
Commissioner Simon stated that she supported the motion except for the change to
Section No. 1.
Page 610
Commissioner Perez agreed.
Commissioner Simon offered a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to eliminate changes to
Section No. 1.
Mr. Christopher DePerro (staff) asked for clarification from Commissioner Simon. He
asked if she was proposing to leave the existing Citywide requirement as is.
Commissioner Simon responded, yes.
Commissioner Busching stated that although she was reluctant to agree, because she
supports staffs’ desire to simplify this city wide parking requirements in order to move
this forward, she would accept Commissioner Simon’s amendment.
Commissioner Gaynor SECONDED the amended motion.
There was discussion and clarifications made about the motion on the floor.
Commissioner Jaramillo explained that he did not agree with removing any flexibility for
affordable housing.
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per
the staff recommendation, with modifications regarding the following sections as listed in
the Staff Report:
x Section 1 (City wide multifamily parking requirements): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 2 (City wide affordable housing parking reduction): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 3 (Infill Development District parking reduction): Approve as proposed.
x Section 4 (Walkable Urban Code parking requirements): Change from 0.50
spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 5 (Walkable Urban Code affordable housing parking requirements):
Delete proposed changes.
x Section 6 (Passenger loading zones within Walkable Urban Code): Approve as
proposed.
Maker: Busching
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 6-2 (Boyd and Jaramillo)
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes
Proposed Language (Planning Commission recommendation is highlighted for clarity):
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking
space, unreserved, as follows:
Page 611
***
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.
***
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.
***
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF
OF VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR
DURING DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE
AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-
TERM.
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED
IN TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.
***
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:
Page 612
J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.
1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.
2. Density bonus.
a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.
b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.
3. PARKING REDUCTION.
A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.
B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.
***
Page 613
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:
C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.
Type of Land Use Parking Requirements
***
Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit,
1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless
of number of bedrooms
When the required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3
spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or
2 bedroom unit and 1.0 space per each 3 or more bedroom
unit.
Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot
driveways are provided for individual units, .25 space per
each unit.
Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.
Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this
section may be counted toward the total required parking
count.
1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.
Page 614
Type of Land Use Parking Requirements
Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
Family Attached bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0
space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of number
of bedrooms
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER
SECTIONS 614-618.
2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING
UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN
ADDITIONAL 0.25 UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING
UNIT MUST PER PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT FOR VISITOR PARKING.
***
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:
E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.
***
3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:
a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)
b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)
***
F. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)
***
9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
Page 615
a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.
(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.
(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.
***
c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):
***
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:
Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
***
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.
***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.
1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:
Page 616
a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.
b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.
c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.
d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.
***
Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories
Residential, Single- per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
Family DETACHED
(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured
Residential: Single-
in a direct line from the building, and 10%
Family Attached and
reduction of required parking if the development is
Multifamily
greater than 1,320 feet from a light rail station.
The minimum required on-site vehicular parking is
exclusively for the patrons of the subject parcel.
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.;
FAMILY ATTACHED
OTHERWISE PER SECTION 702.
0.5 0.65
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
PER UNIT N/A
FAMILY (2) REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.
***
Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5
AFFORDABLE PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED
HOUSING
Page 617
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories
***
***
D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.
1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:
***
E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.
1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.
***
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.
1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)
CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2
HOSPITAL 3
HOTEL OR MOTEL 3
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)
Page 618
ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)
(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.
(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.
2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.
A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.
(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.
(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.
(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.
(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.
(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.
(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.
Page 619
(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.
DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.
(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.
(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.
Page 620
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.
(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.
(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.
(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.
(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:
(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).
(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.
Page 621
(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.
C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.
(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.
(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.
***
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Angie Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 622
ATTACHMENT H
July 6, 2023
I am in full support of Z-TA-8-23-Y as it reflects the true parking need for multi-family
housing versus the current zoning ordinance and supports City Council’s desire to
increase the amount of housing options and homes for our fellow Phoenicians. Too
often we do not think of multifamily development as a place where we would live, but
the reality is almost every one of us were renters at one point in our life. Furthermore, if
we as a community want to provide places for our children to live that are more
reasonably priced, we cannot continue to make it so costly and difficult to build
apartments. These restrictions have led to the enormous rent increases we have
experienced. As a parent with a daughter in an out of town masters program looking to
possibly become a teacher, affordability of housing will guide her decision on whether to
return to Phoenix or not. By reducing the required number of parking spaces, we will
need smaller parcels of land to build the needed housing and reduce the overall cost of
the project. Fewer parking spaces means less asphalt and heat island impact. More
building and less parking increases property tax revenues to maintain our city. Smaller
parking lots means shorter distances between places, reducing traffic and improving
walkability.
I applaud the willingness to make these modifications and immediately look to the next
step. All of the changes being suggested are critical. However, while it is wonderful to
reduce parking requirements on multi-family land, the fact remains there is little to no
land available which is actually zoned to build multi family housing and every re-zoning
case typically takes 9 months, increases costs and ultimately sets us back from
reaching our housing goals. This lack of opportunity drives correctly zoned land prices
higher and higher off setting the great steps hopefully being taken at this meeting to
build more housing. With that in mind I would implore this body in a future step to
consider allowing commercially zoned land along arterials and collectors throughout our
city, especially those with bus or light rail transit, to allow by right T:4:3 zoning and T:5:5
zoning in appropriate places, which will then actually give us land to build housing on.
Thank you for your consideration of this case and I hope for continued progress in the
future.
Dan Klocke
Phoenician
Page 623
July 19, 2023
200 W. Washington Street, 11th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Neighborhood Leaders Support Amendments to Reduce Parking Restrictions
Dear Mayor Kate Gallego and Phoenix City Council:
On behalf of myself and the Carnation Association of Neighbors, I am writing in support of proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y and request that you vote yes to approve this amendment to
reduce the mandatory minimum parking requirements for multifamily, single-family, and affordable housing.
The Carnation Neighborhood is located in the Melrose area of Phoenix between the Light Rail and 7th Avenue
on the east and west and between Indian School and the Grand Canal on the north and south. Our
neighborhood is a diverse mix of single family and multifamily homes. Many people have moved to our
neighborhood in recent years because it is adjacent to major public transit stops, including the Light Rail,
and walking distance to the wonderful businesses in the Melrose District. Just in the past decade, I have seen
many people eschewing car use in favor of walking, biking, taking public transit or rideshares. This
phenomenon will continue, especially if our City builds the infrastructure to support it. I am writing in support
of the proposed text amendment because it will continue to make our community more bikeable and
walkable, it reflects the reality that our residents have more transit options and will help reduce the cost of
building housing in this City.
The historical and empirical evidence has made it clear that minimum parking requirements, especially
around public transit nodes, have led to empty, unused parking lots that make our City less walkable,
bikeable, and livable. Residents in the Carnation Neighborhood and all around our City are looking for
policies that will encourage walkability and make it safe and easy for all of our families to walk and bike in
our neighborhoods. The proposed Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y is a very reasonable step in the right
direction, and I encourage you to vote yes on the proposed text amendment as proposed. Thank you for your
work to make housing more affordable and this City more walkable and transit friendly.
Sincerely,
Ed Hermes
President, Carnation Neighborhood Association
Carnationassociationaz@gmail.com
https://www.carnationassociationaz.com/
480-452-2062
Page 624
1603 Orrington Avenue Suite 450 Evanston, Illinois 60201 Phone 847.562.9400 Fax 847.562.9401 www. brinshore.com
July 31, 2023
Phoenix City Council and
Phoenix Planning Commission
Re: Support of Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y
Phoenix Scholar House, 2945 N. 18th Pl, Phoenix, AZ
Affordable Housing in Phoenix
To Whom it May Concern,
As developer of the Phoenix Scholar House, a proposed 56-unit mixed-income, multifamily community in
Phoenix, we write in support of Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y for right-sizing parking mandates.
The Phoenix Scholar House has been thoughtfully designed to include 56 rental units that will serve
families making from 30% to 60% of the Area Median Income. While working closely with the City’s
Planning professionals, along with our local non-profit partner Save the Family, we will combine education
and housing to lift families into self-sufficiency and permanently from public assistance.
Because affordable housing has long been a stated as a priority of the City of Phoenix Concept Plan, we
support this Text Amendment’s objective to refresh the outdated zoning codes, which, in effect, will
continually price community members out of their neighborhoods and their city.
Right-sizing parking mandates have become popular across the country. The May-June YouGov
poll of Arizona voters found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking
mandates, so long as at least one parking space is provided per home.
Please vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking rations with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking residents of Phoenix.
Should you have any questions, or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at
(513) 603-0074 or by email at scottp@brinshore.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Puffer
Senior Vice President
Brinshore Development, L.L.C.
Page 625
Page 626
Racelle Escolar
From: Krista Shepherd
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:
Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
multi‐generational housing
property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:
greater utilization of transit systems
allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
supports development of affordable housing
aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Thank you.
Krista
Resident of District 6, Business location is District 7, Member of the 2025 Plan Phoenix Leadership Committee
Krista Shepherd AIA, LEED AP, NCARB
Principal
o 602.650.7630 c 602.708.4588
Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]
Page 627
Racelle Escolar
From: Kelly Hatch
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:05 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:
Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
multi‐generational housing
property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:
greater utilization of transit systems
allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
supports development of affordable housing
aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Kelly Hatch
Kelly Hatch NCIDQ
Senior Associate
o 602.650.7635 c 425.218.5383
Kelly.Hatch@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]
Page 628
Racelle Escolar
From: Mike Anglin
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Aug 3, 2023 - Planning Commission - SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17
Importance: High
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:
Item 16: Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADU’s):
This would positively allow for:
• incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
• multi-generational housing
• property owner wealth-building through rental opportunities
• aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking reductions):
This would positively allow for:
• greater utilization of transit systems
• greater density to be built on small infill lots
• promoting development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requirements that cannot
reasonably fit on site
• supporting development of affordable housing
• alignment with the Walkable Urban Code
• alignment with transit-oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Thank you.
Mike
Resident of District 5 and employee of business located in District 7
Mike Anglin RA, LEED AP
Senior Associate
he/him
o 602.650.7614 c 520.664.4625
Mike.Anglin@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]
Page 629
Racelle Escolar
From: Melissa Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17
To whom it may concern:
I am wri ng to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:
Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would posi vely allow for:
incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
multi‐generational housing
property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reduc ons): This would posi vely allow for:
greater utilization of transit systems
allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
supports development of affordable housing
aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.
Thank you.
Melissa
Resident of District 6, Business loca on is District 7
Melissa Alexander NCIDQ, IIDA
Principal
o 602.650.7627 c 602.748.5505
Melissa.Alexander@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]
Page 630
RCVD 8/2/2023
7250 N. 16th Street, Suite 302 | Phoenix, AZ 85020
1-866-389-5649 | Fax: 602-256-2928 | TTY: 1-877-434-7598
aarp.org/az | azaarp@aarp.org | twitter: @AZ_AARP
facebook.com/aarparizona
AARP Arizona on City of Phoenix Text Amendments Z-TA-5-23-y and
Z-TA-8-23-Y
AARP Arizona, on behalf of its almost 900,000 Arizona members is excited to support
both text amendments as they will reduce and remove barriers to creating more housing
that is affordable to all Phoenicians.
TA-5-23:
The City of Phoenix is in desperate need of more units that are affordable. As one of the
largest cities in the nation, and growing, we must work to address these concerns. As
our economy and population have grown, so too have the prices of rent. While we
welcome the growth and prosperity to our city, we must ensure that city residents have
access to stable housing. We’ve watched our population of unhoused grow dramatically
over the last few years, especially amongst the 50+. In our heat, housing is a matter of
life and death.
Accessible Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Casitas or Mother-in-Law Suites, are
a great way to combat the over 150,000-unit shortage we have in the city. We also have
evidence that these units, if allowed, will go to those most in need of them. A 2018 study
in Vancouver found that 32% of the residents of ADUs had income that was less than
80% of the regional median income, and 16% had income that was less than half of the
regional median income.
The average Social Security check in Arizona is roughly $1,550 per month, whereas the
average rent in Phoenix is closer to $2,100 per month. People who moved to Arizona in
years past are now being priced out leading to some of the difficulties we are currently
seeing.
From another perspective, ADUs can also allow for older adults, who need care by
family but can’t afford living in a long-term care facility, to have a home to age in place.
There are an estimated 800,000 unpaid family caregivers in Arizona and having more
options to those needing care to be near those providing helps everyone.
TA-8-23:
Regarding the parking requirement changes, AARP policy actually recommends no on-
site parking requirements. Parking requirements create additional barriers to ADU
Page 631
creation because there is additional land needed and present additional costs. For
instance, depending on the type of parking being built it can range between $2,500 and
$15,000.
Interestingly, we do not require more parking for every additional bedroom created in a
home, thus, AARP believes that ADUs should be treated similarly.
According to a recent AARP Arizona survey, 80% of respondents put increasing rent as
one of the top concerns they had which could prevent them from aging in place. In the
same survey, 90% of respondents said that Elected Leaders should make affordable
housing a priority.
We are seeing everyone including stakeholders, elected officials, and residents all
agree that housing is a major concern. These proposed changes would be a step in the
right direction to allow Phoenix to grow without leaving people, especially older adults
behind.
Sincerely,
Dana Marie Kennedy, MSW
State Director, AARP Arizona
Page 632
August 2, 2023
Re: ADU and Parking Reform Items Before Your Commission
To Whom It May Concern:
As a Phoenix resident, father of two children, and someone who works in the development and
construction industry, I urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates).
Our zoning code must keep pace with the needs of society. These needs are not static. Indeed, they
are dynamic and always changing. If our zoning code is meant to serve our community and protect
its best interests, then it too must remain dynamic and open to change. Because affordability
metrics, long permitting times, and housing production numbers clearly indicate that the status quo
is not keeping up. This reality demands action.
I am proud to see our city step up to the plate and show leadership by taking a serious look at
zoning reform. Both text amendments before you are critical.
Backyard units give people options, especially for multi-generational families or those who need
more space but cannot move due to an existing job or today’s much higher interest rates. These
same units were once legal in some of our most beloved historic neighborhoods–just take a look
around Coronado, for example. It is time we re-legalize what was once a common sense way to
gently grow and incrementally expand a family’s use of their hard-won property.
PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas!
Relaxed parking minimums are equally valuable. There is a long and proven literature covering the
many ways high parking ratios negatively impact our communities, but that’s not even the most
important point. Simply put, these requirements driven significant cost, and those costs transfer all
the way down to the monthly rent paid by everyday people. Reducing parking ratios is not a
giveaway to well capitalized developers. Instead, it is a leg up to our neighbors, many of whom rent
either out of necessity or by choice. We need to do everything we can to encourage efficient use of
infill land while reducing the cost to construct infill housing.
PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with today’s needs!
Thank you,
Lucas Lindsey
www.urbnist.com | 2839 E Yucca St. Phoenix, AZ 85028 | @urbnist
Page 633 1
Racelle Escolar
From: Lorenzo Perez
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:37 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Joshua Bednarek
Subject: FW: Planning Commission - Discussion on Reduced Parking Minimums (Multifamily Development
Projects)
Dear Planning Commission,
I’m submitting this email to acknowledge and support the efforts undertaken by the Planning and Development
Department to proactively evaluate and propose reducing required Parking Minimums for Multifamily Residential
Development projects in the City of Phoenix.
It’s no secret that we as a nation are significantly underhoused, especially with affordable and attainable housing. Travel
the state or country and witness the impact in large amounts of under and unsheltered individuals. Several factors
contribute to this reality, some of which are dated development policies that don’t keep up with the times, fail to
consider different contexts in the built environment nor account for evolving market demand conditions. It’s
encouraging to see Phoenix take proactive measures to find solutions to help facilitate new approaches to encouraging
the development of more diverse cost efficient housing. Time is money for developers and having policies in place that
reduce or eliminate the need to pursue time and cost intensive parking reduction variances helps get projects to market
faster at less cost. This is fundamental for establishing affordability as development costs ultimately get passed onto the
user/consumer. City governments are in the unique position to lead efforts such as this to streamline and simplify the
development process.
As a developer, owner and operator of mixed use projects, particularly infill and adaptive reuse projects, I’m proud to
see the City of Phoenix leading this effort and taking proactive action to find workable solutions, soliciting input from
people/firms that develop projects.
As a practitioner in this space, I offer the P&D department and Planning Commission a few points to consider as they
reflect on and continue to work through this process ….
1. I encourage the commission to PRIORITIZE HOUSING PEOPLE OVER PARKING CARS. It is a community and
economic development priority that effects every citizen’s quality of life. If we don’t have an adequate supply of
diverse residential options to house all levels of the workforce, especially the most vulnerable in high value
service roles such as firemen, police officers, nurses, office clerks, teachers, retailers, service workers,
construction workers, tradesman, laborers, grocery store clerks, etc, what kind of city and local economy will we
have?
2. Consider that not all households are the same. Small household formations of 1‐2 people are one of the fastest
and largest growing market sectors in the US that cover all ages of adults. Not all residents can afford cars or
choose not to own one and instead take advantage of transit and rideshare. Developing policy that addresses
the needs of a varied and diverse housing base is critical. This study and proposal is a significant step in that
direction.
3. Having to dedicate less land for parking opens up more space to add diverse housing options and reduce
housing development cost. Increased housing supply delivered faster, at less cost, translates to more available
affordable housing options. Parking is expensive to construct, to maintain and significantly hinders the ability to
develop urban / suburban sites.
Page 634
4. Requiring less parking reduces the potential to have overparked and underutilized sites that often become
attractive nuisances for illicit activity and become costly burdens to maintain and service during operation,
negatively contributing to a property’s appeal and ongoing affordability.
5. Offering parking reduction incentives to encourage affordable housing is a good idea to attract more
affordable/attainable and attractive development.
6. Encouraging property owners to work together and develop shared parking strategies is something that should
be examined. We’ve had success with our commercial infill projects working with neighbors to use adjacent or
nearby underutilized parking assets to help provide overflow parking for our retail / dining projects. Office and
retail properties are great complimentary evening parking solutions for residential.
7. Less surface parking is a sensitive development sustainability approach to reducing heat island effect from large
exposed parking fields.
8. We are blessed in Phoenix to have large right of way streets. Consider leveraging this existing asset to provide
additional on street parking as an option for multifamily development. Owners and developers would likely
entertain paying a reasonable and proportionate fee to help contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the
streets in exchange for this option in lieu of overinvesting into parking that may or may not get used. In many
cases across the city, we have enough space to accommodate on street parking while maintaining adequate
traffic flow. Many cities across the world utilize on‐street parking as an asset to free up land for more housing.
Phoenix could benefit from this paradigm shift to help generate revenue to assist with the maintenance of
streets while simultaneously helping to incentivize more housing.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice some thoughts on this issue and for taking this important step to build a more
livable city.
Respectfully,
Lorenzo Perez
602.689.0194 Cell
lorenzo@venueprojects.com
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
August 3rd, 2023
As community organizations led by and serving Phoenix families and community leaders,
we urge the Planning Commission at the City of Phoenix to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates). These
proposals will help make housing more affordable and attainable across our city,
increase access to jobs and amenities, and save Phoenicians money when we
desperately need it.
Housing is a basic human need and we believe that any hard-working Phoenician should be
able to find safe, stable housing they can afford. We also recognize that our outdated
zoning codes present a huge barrier to affordable and attainable housing. Our city
policymakers have an obligation to act, to ensure no hard-working Phoenician is priced
out of their community.
The two proposals before the Planning Commission and City Council would provide modest,
but important improvements to affordability and livability in Phoenix. They will create a
pathway for our city to stay a place Phoenicians can afford to live, work, and raise families,
while maintaining the visual character and livability of our neighborhoods.
Legalize casitas to expand affordable housing options
Vote YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas, vital to any affordable housing strategy.
Casitas are among the most naturally affordable forms of housing.
● A new market-rate casita rents for 75% less than a new single-family home.1
● Multiple studies have found the average casita is affordable at between 60% and
80% of area median income.
Casitas provide opportunity to people of all ages.
● Casitas enable seniors to age in place by providing ongoing rental income without
needing to move off their property.2
● Casitas enable multigenerational living on a single parcel, particularly useful for
families who want to live in multigenerational arrangements.3
Legalizing casitas is popular. A YouGov poll of Arizona voters in May-June of this year found
that 73% of Maricopa County residents support allowing owners of single-family houses
to build and rent out casitas on their property, vs. only 18% opposition.4
https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/01/we-ran-the-rent-numbers-on-portlands-7-newly-legal-home-options/
https://www.aarp.org/home-family/your-home/info-2020/accessory-dwelling-unit.html
https://accessorydwellings.org/2016/01/22/adu-multigenerational-families/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BrOgBvXl9v1q7Z_fFm-tC7uE5fV9FuTF/view?usp=sharing
Page 638
Right-size parking mandates to bring down housing costs
Vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking Phoenicians.
Study after study shows parking mandates make housing more expensive.
● Multiple independent, nonpartisan analyses of parking mandates found that on-site
parking adds 15% - 17% to the cost of rent.5 6
● Another study showed that during peak periods 37% of urban residential parking
spaces are unoccupied.7
Relaxing parking mandates enables more homes to be built more quickly.
● Studies of cities that repealed parking mandates in the last ten years found that 60%
to 70% of new homes built there would not have been legal under prior mandates.8
Right-sizing parking mandates are popular. The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters
found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking mandates, so
long as at least one parking space is provided per home, vs. only 22% opposition.
Phoenicians support bold action to build more affordable housing
With Phoenix facing a shortage of over 163,000 homes, the working residents of our city are
done waiting for action.9 The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters found that 55% of
Maricopa County residents believe “building more affordable housing” is important.
The time to act is now. Phoenix’s working families need you to vote YES on text
amendments Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y.
Signed,
Urban Phoenix Project
Arizona State Senator Anna Hernandez
Arizona State Representative Analise Ortiz
American Institute of Architects
AIA Phoenix Metro
A Permanent Voice Foundation
https://www.sightline.org/research_item/who-pays-for-parking/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattles-car-population-has-finally-peaked/
https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-draft-homeless-plan-hopes-portal-advocates-community-gallego-11478370
Page 639
Carbon Vudu LLC
Carnation Association of Neighbors
CHISPA AZ
Fuerte AZ
Merge Architectural Group
Phoenix Spokes People
RAIL CDC
SoPho Convening
Trees Matter
Unemployed Workers United
Page 640
Racelle Escolar
From: pearce@carbon-vudu.us
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:07 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Support and less parking
Yes I support the ADU program and less parking c.
Pearce | 602.430.3451 ©2023 OWNERSHIP OF SERVICE ‐‐ All reports, plans, specifica ons, computer documents, field data, notes and informa on prepared
by CARBON VUDU LLC and their consultants shall remain the property thereto. CARBON VUDU LLC shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including the copyright thereto.
Page 641
Racelle Escolar
From: Dudzik Smith, Katherine
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:58 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Support for Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y
Hello,
I am writing in support of the Zoning text amendments suggested by the City of Phoenix staff to allow ADUs and
reduction of parking minimums. Both of these measures will help with the affordable housing crisis that the Phoenix
metro area is experiencing and thus help the homelessness situation. Both of these measures help with creating a
stronger community by allowing more diverse development. Please adopt these zoning text amendments.
Thank you,
Katherine
Katherine Dudzik Smith, AIA, NOMA, LEED AP, NCARB
Senior Design Architect
HDR
20 East Thomas Road, Suite 2500
Phoenix, AZ 85012
D 602.474.7812 M 480.239.6291
Katherine.DudzikSmith@hdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us [hdrinc.com]
Page 642
ATTACHMENT I
RCVD 6/27/2023
Page 643
Page 644
Page 645
Page 646
Page 647
FROM : Robert Maynard
SUBJECT : Parking space
MESSAGE : I just read where the city council will vote to reduce parking spaces for
apartments in various parts of the city. I am very much against this. Parking is an issue around
this city all the time. Look around any school and the residential neighborhoods where the
neighborhood,is inundated with students, and parents cars. Try finding a parking spot in
uptown plaza on the weekends and holidays.
Overall it is a very bad idea. It would have been a good idea if done in the 60s or early 70s but
not now.
Thank you for your public service on the council,
Robert Maynard
524 W. Why Worry Lane
Phoenix, 85021
Email : maynard198@cox.net
AREA : 602
PHONE : 9976640
ADDRESS : 524 W. Why Worry Lane
CITY : PHOENIX
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85021
Submission ID: 53d14aade3b24416acf98b1c660f80cb
Form Submission On : 7/18/2023 12:24:07 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district3/contact-district-3
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 648
1 August 2023
Chair and Commissioners
Planning Commission
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:
Attached with this letter is a correspondence the Neighborhood Coalition (NCGP) sent to all
Village Planning Committees (VPCs) in July regarding the subject text amendments.
NCGP representatives presented on the subject at ten of the 15 VPCs.
Planning and Development submitted to you an addendum to the ADU text amendment. While
we appreciate the effort to improve the TA, the changes have yet to be aired so we wish for a
more fulsome public discussion before embracing the changes suggested.
We continue to stand by our recommendations—amending the ADU TA to improve the clarity
of its impact on historic preservation districts, special planning districts and overlays, and HOAs
and CC&Rs. We also think managing short term rentals (STRs) deserves a greater inspection.
We also believe that the proposed parking reductions to affordable and multifamily housing
projects warrant substantial amendments to be considered viable on a citywide basis. Indeed,
nine of the 15 VPCs voted to deny the reduced parking text amendment as presented to you.
Please consider the recommendations NCGP has offered you for both TAs.
Respectfully,
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix members and friends
att.
Page 649
11 July 2023
Chair and Committee Members
Desert View Village Planning Committee
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)
Chair and Committee members:
The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix is registered with the Corporation Commission of
the State of Arizona and has continuously been a member in good standing since 1984. Our
members are from neighborhoods across the City of Phoenix.
Background
We understand that our nation is facing a housing shortage and that Arizona and Phoenix have
not been spared from this shortage. NCGP members believe it falls upon all of us to help provide
relief and a sustainable path forward.
In that spirit, members of the NCGP working group gathered to review and discuss the proposed
subject text amendments the City has anticipated to address our housing shortage.
2023 Arizona Legislative Session
This year’s session saw several housing bills make their way through the Legislature without
success. Indeed, NCGP, its members and our partners across the Valley and the state were active
in seeking ‘no’ votes from elected representatives. Ultimately, the bills were either voted down
decisively, on a bipartisan basis, or they failed to make their way to the floor of either Chamber.1
Senate bill SB1117 was denied in the Senate on a bipartisan vote, failing 20 to 9 in March. The bill was then
broken into 3 separate bills: HB1161, HB1163 and SB2536. On the final day of voting in June, SB2536 was defeated
on a bipartisan basis, 19-10. HB1161 and HB1163 failed to get a vote on the House floor, ending the bill sponsor’s
push for so-called ‘zoning reform.’
Page 650
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 2 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023
We provide this information to let VPC members know that all the text amendments coming
through committees in the last several months--and now this month—can claim origins from
the bills at the state legislature that we are intimately familiar with.
Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs)
Many of us think that ADUs can have a positive impact on the housing supply in our city. Yet, we
believe that there are several elements of the proposed TA that require additional scrutiny. These
are our comments and suggestions.
I. Historic Preservation and other Special Planning/Overlay Districts:
We have great concern that the TA as presented will create confusion and contention between
this ordinance and the ordinances that govern properties of historic significance. Z-TA-5-23-Y
must state that for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over
the design review standards for ADUs. Specifically, the proposed language states:
"(c) DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS."
The phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts
MUST be reviewed by the HP Office. The proposed language is subject to misinterpretation that a
project may EITHER be approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of
Section 8.5 of the TA.
To make it clear that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, we suggest the following
language:
"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or
regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation),
Article 8 shall have precedence."
We also believe the proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards), likewise does not
make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic
property (widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened.
The proposed language states:
"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be
located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the
required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOTBE REQUIRED TO BE LESS
THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.”
Page 651
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 3 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023
We think stronger language is needed to ensure that Historic Preservation regulation takes
precedence over the ADU ordinance by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic
Preservation", and adding the following sentence:
"Any and all changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the
provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent
with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have
precedence."
Third, the proposed amendment Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) is also
worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.
The proposed language states:
"b. A DETACHED ADU, WHEN VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT STREETS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
WITH SIMILAR AND/OR COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND COLOR(S) AS THE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP
ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)"
Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", the language should be
strengthened as follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties:
Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following
sentence:
“A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take precedence."
II. Parking for ADUs
We agree that the amount of the front yard that can be allowed for parking needs to increase
from 45% to 50% for parcels that are approved for an Additional Dwelling Unit. We also know,
based on experience, that on-street parking will become more frequent.
To ensure that property owners in proximity to a property with an ADU is not inconvenienced or
that use of their property is not diminished, on-street parking should be regulated. Please note
that homes subject to Historic Preservation, Special Zoning and Overlay Districts are still subject
to whatever specific regulation(s) applies to those properties per the first consideration in this
position statement.
Page 652
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 4 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023
Combining on-site and on-street parking concerns, the regulation should read:
“A minimum of 1 parking space shall be available either on-site with adherence to Section
720.F.1 as amended to 50% of the front yard, or on-street parking that must only be in
front of the subject property unless the property is a corner lot and side-street parking is
possible.”
Consideration should also be given to adding language to ensure visibility triangles are
maintained.
III. Short Term Rental
We appreciate the addition of the paragraph in the revised TA requiring a Restrictive Covenant
but do not feel it is strong enough to meet the City’s goal of increasing affordable housing supply
for permanent residents. As currently worded, the Restrictive Covenant will preclude investors
who own residential property from applying for an ADU, but it does not prevent an owner-
occupied property from renting an ADU on a short-term basis. The consequence will have a
negative impact on affordable housing for first time renters (e.g., college-aged adults), and
temporary workers (e.g., traveling nurses), among others.
The Restrictive Covenant paragraph should be revised to add the regulation that ADUs, if rented,
must be for a term of no less than thirty (30) days. The current City of Flagstaff ordinance states:
(a)The property owner, which includes title holders and contract purchasers, shall occupy
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their principal residence, unless the
primary dwelling unit and ADU are allowed to be separately leased or rented in
accordance with subsection G of this Section.
(b)The primary dwelling unit or the ADU that is not occupied by the property owner that is
rented or leased shall be for a period of no less than 30 days.
IV. Homeowners’ Associations/ CCRs
The proposed TA does not address coordination with Homeowners’ Associations or Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions. By law, these contracts must be honored in addition to municipal
codes and ordinances. This TA should state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA and
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in addition to the provisions of the ordinance.
Z- TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)
We understand the desire to relieve what developers perceive as parking ‘constraints.’ We
generally believe, however, that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking reductions does not
reflect a thoughtful approach for a city of 517 square miles.
Page 653
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 5 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023
Any reduction in the current parking space calculations for multi-family housing, in any district
and any price category, will put the burden of parking on public streets throughout the city.
Therefore, any revisions to the current ordinance need careful consideration.
We believe this TA is being rushed through the approval process without such diligence. With the
goal of working together to find suitable solutions, we make observations and propose revisions
to the current ordinance as follows:
I. Parking space calculations for multi-family developments should only be based on
proximity to currently available transportation options. They should never be based on
the rental rates of the units (I.e., luxury, affordable, market rate, low-income/subsidized).
It is discriminatory to believe that people who live in lower-priced housing do not have or
do not want personal vehicles.
II. Because of the cost of apartment rentals, more units of every size are being shared
by two or more people, oftentimes housemates rather than couples. Expecting that no
occupant will have a car, even in TODs and WU code areas, is not based on empirical data.
III. Reducing the on-site parking requirements for multi-family housing might be
appropriate for residents living in the Downtown Core, Transit Oriented and WU Code
districts, yet it is not acceptable to residents living outside of those districts.
Phoenix is the second largest city by area in the United States. Because of the lack of
convenient, reliable public transportation in every Phoenix Village outside of downtown
and within walking distance of light rail, residents depend on personal vehicles to go to
work, to the grocery, and to the entertainment venues clustered in downtown.
Those residents who do not live downtown will also need parking to continue enjoying all
that downtown has to offer. If all the street parking is taken by downtown residents,
commuting patrons will be deterred from attending events.
IV. Include a requirement that visibility triangles must be maintained.
A. Reducing on-site parking to encourage more density with potentially small front
and side setbacks could lead to encroachment on the visibility triangle that is a
necessity to ensure safety.
V. City-wide Multi-family Parking Requirement
A. The base parking space requirement should be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
i. This simplifies the calculation instead of calculation based on size of DU
ii. Maintains the current requirement as the most frequently built size of
unit (1-2 bdrm)
iii. Averages the current requirements (1.25/efficiency; 1.5/1-2 bdrm; 2/3
bdrm)
Page 654
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 6 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023
iv. It should not be less than the current efficiency DU requirement
VI. Citywide Affordable housing Parking Reduction
A. Delete this provision because it does not consider proximity to alternative to
personal vehicle modes of transportation.
VII. Infill Development District Parking Reduction
A. Delete the calculations entirely
B. Use 10% bonus density incentive
VII. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements
A. Required parking should never be “zero”
B. Parking for handicapped residents should always be required and maintained
C. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will not have personal vehicles
D. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will never have a guest with a personal vehicle
IX. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code
A. Also require parking of service vehicles (e.g., repair technicians) that require
more time than the other stated examples
B. Also require parking for renter move-in/move-out vehicles that require more
time than the other stated examples
Process: Lack of neighborhood outreach
In a June 1, 2023, staff report to the City of Phoenix Planning Commission, PDD staff wrote:
Staff obtained input from various stakeholders and held four meetings to review and
request additional input on the proposed text amendment. Stakeholders included
individuals from the following organizations:
• Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona (MHCA)
• Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona (MHIA)
• Arizona Department of Housing Board of Manufactured Housing Member
• Affordable Housing/Private Developers
• Arizona State University, Real Estate Development
While we understand that staff feels the need to reach out to industry representatives to
understand their position, so, too does staff need to reach out to citizens and neighborhoods to
understand the issues of the vast swaths of residents who will be impacted by these proposed
sweeping changes to our housing stock.
Does the City of Phoenix think that simply vetting these proposals—changes that can have a vast
impact on the existing population—should only be presented to VPCs?
Page 655
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 7 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023
Clearly, some VPCs took issue with the speed and confusion of the proposals of the initial two
text amendments when they were presented. It appears six of 15 VPCs did not meet quorum on
the first go-around; yet another VPC did not meet quorum last night.
We ask: How can vast changes to the entire city be vetted by, perhaps, 150 people or less?
Next steps: Approve our recommended amendments
We have pored over these proposals to identify the gaps and looked ahead to stave off
unintended consequences. We’ve shared those with you here. Simply approving what’s been
presented in your packet would be to ignore the serious concerns we’ve presented without
rectifying those issues.
The Neighborhood Coalition looks to make these TAs the strongest and most applicable they can
be. We would be disappointed if members simply approved the proposals “as is” because we
don’t want to see this opportunity squandered for the sake of speed, with all of us missing out on
something that can truly help our city now and in the future.
Respectfully,
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP)
Neal Haddad, President, NCGP; Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association
B. Paul Barnes, Vice President, NCGP; AZ APA Distinguished Citizen Planner; former CEVPC chair
Mary Crozier, President, North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
Sandy Grunow, Co-Chair, Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Dave Jackson, President, Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association
Jack Leonard, architect, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP; 2015 General Plan update committee;
former Camelback East and Encanto Village Planning Committees
Michael Phillips, President, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association
Jackie Rich, President, Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association
Page 656
Racelle Escolar
From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:46 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items 16 and 7 (Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this email to urge you to take your time in considering the proposed complex text amendments pertaining to Accessory
Dwelling Units and Reduced Parking Requirements. Do not rush into a decision before you are comfortable that what you are acting on
will not come back and bite you and the city of Phoenix at a later date.
These two text amendments will have a big impact on Phoenix and Phoenicians. They sprung from the Planning Department, were
sent to the Village Planning Committees for their recommendations (all of whom are Council appointees), now you, also Council
appointees, are considering them, and then finally, the Council will act on them. The public’s opportunity to provide input was neither
publicized or solicited. No neighborhood stakeholders were included in their development. While there were articles in the AZ
Republic about the Accessory Dwelling Unit amendment as early as July 3, the first article on the parking reduction text amendment
was on July 19, when all but 3 VPCs had already met and made recommendations. It is also worth mentioning that the agendas for the
VPCs did not identify Z-TA-8-23-Y as reducing required parking although they identified the other amendment as allowing
ADUs. Instead the agenda listed all the sections that needed to be changed so that someone looking at it would have no idea what that
text amendment was actually about.
The only members of the public who have participated in the VPC meetings are people who serve on a different VPC, work for an
industry that would benefit from these amendments, or neighbors and neighborhood groups who accidentally found out about the
amendments. I have been to five VPC meetings, each of which lasted for as long as 3.5 hours, just to be able to speak for 2 minutes
max on each text amendment. (Note, some VPCs allowed more time for members of the public to speak - just not the ones I attended.)
At the meetings I attended, I was not allowed to ask questions. Following public comments, staff often offered a rebuttal to what
members of the public said, and after that the public was ignored - no opportunity for any of us to answer questions that came up or to
respond to incorrect information. It was frustrating.
I have other concerns about the VPC meetings. The packets that were sent to the VPC members online were well in excess of 200
pages. Some packets weren’t sent out until after 3:30 pm the day of the meeting; some VPC members never received a packet; other
VPC members received packets but didn’t read them (perhaps because of lack of time or because of the length). There was a
questionable email conversation about the text amendments that all VPC members were part of and which was potentially in violation of
the Open Meeting Law that was referred to at a VPC meeting by several VPC members. Several of the VPCs did not have a quorum in
June and so learned about the text amendments for the first time in July when they were expected to vote on them.
Some of the Planning Commission members are essentially in the same position as those VPC members who had the least amount of
time to learn about the text amendments. They are hearing staff’s presentation about these complex text amendments on the same
night they are expected to vote on them. Your consideration of the text amendments will be late in the night after considering 13 other
cases. How many hundreds of pages were in your packet? The text amendments alone are a lot of information to digest in an evening.
These text amendments are too important and consequential to be rushed through and there is no compelling reason to do so. I urge
you to take your time and give these text amendments the time and attention that they deserve.
Thank you,
Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Page 657
Racelle Escolar
From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing with regards to Z-TA-8-23-Y concerning reductions in parking requirements for multifamily housing.
First of all, I find it surprising that in Z-TA-5-23-Y, which would allow Accessory Dwelling Units, one covered parking space per dwelling
unit is required, while for multi-family housing according to this text amendment, it is acceptable to have .5 parking spaces per unit or
even zero.
The proposed reductions in required parking spaces may work in some parts of town where light rail is nearby, where stores and
services are nearby, and in seasons when the temperatures are moderate. However, it is difficult to imagine that residents living in
parts of the city like Laveen, Desert View, Estrella Mountain, Ahwahtukee, in neighborhoods that are miles from light rail or convenient,
reliable bus service will benefit from the proposed reduced parking requirements. Taking away required parking will not reduce vehicle
ownership. It will mean that apartment residents must park in the streets and walk to and from their cars. On street parking is less
convenient, less safe, less secure than parking in an apartment complex.
It is also difficult to imagine that living within a quarter mile of the light rail would allow people who live in affordable housing to go
entirely without cars and justify zero required parking. A quarter mile is a long way to walk in extreme heat even for young people in
good health. It would be more arduous for everyone else, particularly people who are disabled with mobility problems. There is a
reason that ADA parking spaces are the ones that are closest to entrances to stores and offices - persons with mobility issues can’t
move very far - certainly not a quarter of a mile to get on light rail.
In addition, there are very few grocery and other retail stores, doctors’ offices, and other services that are located along the light rail.
Relying on Light Rail also can limit where one can work, as some jobs require the mobile flexibility that, at this time, only a car can
provide.
It has been argued by affordable housing providers that people living in affordable housing don’t have cars and their parking lots are
half empty. That isn’t true, which you can check out by looking at street view on Google maps. Itt has been argued that developers
will provide more parking than the requirement if that is in the best interest of their prospective tenants. My experience as a neighbor
engaged in land use decisions for more than 20 years, is 9 out of 10 developers will meet the minimum requirements and not go
beyond them in order to maximize their profits. Only the rare developer cares about creating a quality development that benefits the
tenants and the neighborhood.
Thanks to the recently adopted Prop 400 that will be going on the ballot in November, there is no funding allocated to expanding the
light rail system. So in our best case scenario and Proposition 400 is passed, the light rail will not, in the foreseeable future, serve the
communities on the edge of Phoenix. If this is all the light rail there will be, do the proposed reductions in parking requirements in this
text amendment still make sense?
Thank you,
Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Page 658
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: August 30, 2023
Deputy City Manager
From: Joshua BednarekCx07
Planning and DevJlopment Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 70 ON THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA
- PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION -
PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS - Z-TA-8-23-Y
(ORDINANCE G-7161)
Item70, Z-TA-8-23-Y is a request to amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and
revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low
or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements)
and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger loading
zones.
The Planning and Development Department requests the text amendment be continued to
the November 1, 2023, City Council Formal meeting to allow it to be heard by the City
Council, Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee on October 18,
2023, before returning to City Council Formal.
Approved:
��nager
Page 659
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 25, 2023
Deputy City Manager
From: Joshua Bednare��
Planning and Deve(opment Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 82 ON THE NOVEMBER 1, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA -
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - PARKING
REDUCTIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS- Z-TA-8-23-Y
(ORDINANCE G-7161)
Item 82, Z-TA-8-23-Y is a request to amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and
revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low
or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements)
and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger loading
zones.
Staff provided an overview of the text amendment to the City Council Transportation
Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee on October 18, 2023. Staff also provided
the Subcommittee a summary of the feedback and recommendations received during the
public review process. In response to the feedback and recommendations staff presented
several changes to the text amendment language for the Subcommittee's consideration.
Changes included modifications to the proposed parking standards for multi-family
development citywide, an adjustment to the parking standard for properties with Walkable
Urban Code zoning and the introduction of new reduction provisions for projects serving
special needs populations.
The Subcommittee recommended approval of the proposed changes to the text amendment
by a 3-1 vote and directed staff to meet with all City Council members to the discuss the
changes prior to the text amendment returning to the City Council Formal meeting for
action. In order to provide sufficient time to engage with each of the City Councilmembers,
finalize language for the proposed text changes and meeting notice requirements, staff
requests the text amendment be continued to the January 24, 2024, City Council Formal
meeting.
Approved:
Page 660
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
74 item(s)