Name: Formal Meeting — City Council Formal Meeting — Nov 13, 2024
Start: 2024-11-13

← Back to meetings

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-11/13/2024 complete

2024-11-13 · Formal

Item text

***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing and
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-58-24-8 - Approximately 710 Feet
North and 305 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of 20th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue (Ordinance G-7322) - District 8

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-58-24-
8 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family
Residential) for single-family residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 4.54
Proposal: Single-family residential

Owner: Dorothy M. Hallock
Applicant/Representative: John Fox

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on July
9, 2024, and recommended a continuance to the August 13, 2024, Village Planning
Committee meeting, by a vote of 11-3. The South Mountain Village Planning
Committee heard this item on August 13, 2024, and recommended a continuance to
the September 10, 2024, Village Planning Committee meeting, by a vote of 12-0. The
South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on September 10, 2024,
and recommend approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations,
by a vote of 7-5.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated October 7, 2024, with a
modification, by a vote of 7-2.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
and a petition for a 3/4 vote was submitted on October 15, 2024. A 3/4 vote is
required.

Location
Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: N/A

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.

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-58-24-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) TO R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).

____________

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.54-acre site located approximately 710 feet

north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain

Avenue in a portion of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more

specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) to

“R1-10” (Single-Family Residence).

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 conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.

3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

8. 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.

9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.

12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

13. 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.

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. In the event archeological 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 Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

16. Prior to final 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.

17. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 18 units.

18. A minimum of 30% of building elevations shall include covered porches in the
front yard and rear yard at a minimum of 60 feet each and at a depth of at least
6 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

19. The maximum building height for 80% of the lots shall be limited to one story
and 26 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Two-
story lots shall be south of lots 5 and 15, as shown on the site plan date
stamped September 5, 2024.

20. A minimum of 8% of the gross project area shall be retained as common area,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

22. All street-facing garage doors lengths shall be less than 50% of the total width
of the façade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

23. Front setbacks for covered building elements shall be staggered by a minimum
of 5 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

24. Lot widths shall vary, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

25. The southern end of the street shall have landscaping and wrought iron view
fencing to enhance the view of South Mountain, until 20th Lane is constructed
to the south of the property, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

26. A retaining wall shall be provided along the northern boundary of Tract A, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

27. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped September 5, 2024, as modified by the above stipulations and 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

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 13th day of November,

2024.

________________________________
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)

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-58-24-3

THE NORTH 595.00 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF FARM
UNIT H, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA.

ATTACHMENT B

Staff Report Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

South Mountain Village Planning July 9, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 1, 2024
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
(4.54 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District)
(4.54 acres)
Proposal: Single-family residential
Location: Approximately 710 feet north and 305
feet west of the northwest corner of 20th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
Owner: Dorothy M. Hallock
Applicant/Representative: John Fox, William Seymour Co. Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
per acre
Street Map
20th Lane Local 0-foot full street
Classification
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 proposal, as stipulated, will facilitate development of this vacant lot in a manner
that will be compatible in scale and character with the adjacent single-family residential
uses.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Promote neighborhood
identity through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping and character
of the area. Each new development should contribute to the character identified
for the village.

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

As stipulated, the proposal will promote neighborhood identity by requiring the site
plan, landscape plan, and elevations be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through a public hearing process, including review by the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee. This will also promote the existing character of
the area and the vision for the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal includes detached sidewalks within the development that will be planted
with shade trees and enhanced landscaping within the front yards of individual lots.
These improvements will be required to earn the necessary bonus points to achieve
the proposed density. The proposal, will create a comfortable pedestrian environment
within the development, reduce the urban heat island effect, and make the walk to
nearby destinations safer and more comfortable.

Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Rio Montaña Area Plan: Background Item No. 6.

Housing Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 7.

Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 8.

Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 9.

Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 10.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 11.

Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 12.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant S-1
North Single-family residential R1-10
South Single-family residential S-1
East Single-family residential S-1

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

West Single-family residential S-1 (Approved R1-10)

R1-10 – Single-Family Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)

Provisions on the
Standards R1-10 Requirements
proposed site plan
Gross Acreage - 4.54
Total Maximum Number of 16; 20 with bonus 20 with 90 bonus points
Units required (Not specified)
Maximum Density 3.5; 4.5 with bonus 4.4 (Met)

Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 50 to 60 feet (Met)
Minimum Lot Depth None, except 110 feet 110 to 140 (Met)
adjacent to freeway or arterial
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet 2 story (24 feet and 4
inches) (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent, up to 60 percent Not specified
for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures
Minimum Building Setbacks
Perimeter Streets 15 feet (in addition to No perimeter street
landscape setback)
Perimeter Property Lines Rear Rear: Not specified
(Side and Rear) 1-story building: 15 feet
2-story building: 20 feet Side: Not specified

Side
1-story building: 10 feet
2-story building: 15 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks and Standards
Common landscaped 15 feet average, 10 feet No perimeter street
setback adjacent to minimum
perimeter streets

Minimum Common Area 5 percent of gross site area Not specified

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 4.54 acres located approximately 710 feet north and 305
feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue from
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) for a
detached single-family residential subdivision. The subject site is presently vacant.

2. The subject site is
designated as Residential 2
to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
on the General Plan Land
Use Map. The areas to the
north, east, and west are
also designated Residential
2 to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre. The area to the south is
designated as Residential 1
to 2 dwelling units per acre.
The request to rezone to R1-
10 is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Map
designation on the site.

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. To north is a single-family
subdivision zoned R1-10; to
the east are single-family
residences zoned S-1; to the
west is a single-family
subdivision zoned S-1
(Approved R1-10); and to the
south is a single-family
residence zoned S-1.

Location Map; Source: Planning and Development Department

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The proposal is for a Conceptual Site Plan; Source: William Seymour Co. Inc.
20-lot subdivision.
The requested R1-
10 zoning district
allows for 16 units,
and up to 20 units
with a density
bonus. To achieve
20 units the
development will
need 90 bonus
points, the
development
proposes to
achieve the 90
bonus points
through the
provision of detached sidewalks, enhanced landscaping, additional open space,
enhanced architectural design, and entry monuments. The proposed bonus points
will be reviewed through the development review process.

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, depicts the site layout including
the location of each lot, the open space areas, proposed lot widths, proposed lot
depths, the connection to the existing subdivision to the north, and pedestrian
circulation. The site will have access to Baseline Road through the subdivision to
the north. A temporary cul-de-sac will be constructed at the southern portion of the
site until a future connection to South Mountain Avenue is constructed.

To ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and the Rio Montaña Area Plan,
staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to require that the site plan and landscape plan
for future development of the site be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process, including review by the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee.

5. Conceptual Building Elevations
The conceptual building elevations and renderings, attached as an exhibit, feature
two, one-story and two, two-story elevations. Each elevation highlights four-sided
architecture and a diverse mix of building materials. The designs incorporate
enhanced architectural variation that is needed to earn the necessary bonus points
to achieve the proposed density. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to require
that the building elevations for future development of the site be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process,
including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee.
Conceptual Building Elevations; Source: E-Project International

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

STUDIES AND POLICIES
6. Rio Montaña Area Plan:
Source: Planning and Development Department
The Rio Montaña Area Plan
encourages preservation of
the rural character of the
area and incorporates
transition zones to protect
desert and open space
areas. The plan also
encourages pedestrian and
equestrian activities through
a network of trails and
aspires to develop a sense of
community while
encouraging investment in
the community.

The Rio Montaña Area Plan intended to accomplish this vision through seven goals
that include: promoting balanced, high quality development; protecting and
improving neighborhoods through maintenance, rehabilitation and infill projects;
keeping a distinctive character that reflects the diversity in its equestrian heritage,
culture, history and architecture; protecting the rural character, the Sonoran Desert
and the riparian potential of the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project; promoting
future business development and economic growth; developing the tourism
industry through a wide range of opportunities; and providing a variety of
transportation options.

This site is located in the center of the Rio Montaña Area Plan boundaries in an
area with a mix of rural residential neighborhoods, single-family subdivisions,
commercial, and agricultural uses. The development of this vacant parcel will
further the Rio Montaña Area Plan goal of promoting infill projects.

The proposal will further address design and pedestrian connectivity goals by
providing detached sidewalks within the development, entry monuments, enhanced
landscaping, and enhanced building elevations. These improvements will be
required to earn the necessary bonus points to achieve the proposed density.

Additionally, to ensure the development is compatible with the Rio Montaña Area
Plan design goals, Stipulation Nos. 1 and 2 require that the site plan, landscape
plan, and elevations for future development of the site be reviewed and approved

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process, including
review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee

Other design elements of the Rio Montaña Area Plan will be addressed through the
design guidelines of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab.
A (Guidelines for Design Review).

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 the 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 providing housing that will address the supply
shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or underutilized land in a more
sustainable fashion.

8. 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. 8, which requires a minimum of two GI
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.

9. Conservation Measures for New Development:
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the Sustainable
Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 through 10.

10. 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. Sidewalks on the street frontage should be detached from
the curb to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
proposal will create a comfortable streetscape environment with enhanced
landscaping and shaded, detached sidewalks within the development. These
improvements will be required to earn the necessary bonus points to achieve the
proposed density.

Additionally, to ensure the proposal provides adequet shading and landscaping,
the landscape plan for future development, as stipulated, will be required to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 2.

11. Complete Streets Guiding Principles:
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.

The proposed development, as stipulated, will support walking, bicycling, and
transit-use by proposing sidewalks along both sides of 20th Lane. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 13. Additionally, to earn the necessary bonus points to
achieve the proposed density, detached sidewalks within the development are
proposed.

12. Zero Waste Phoenix 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.

The city provides recycling service to single-family developments.

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
13. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received two letters of opposition
regarding the request. Concerns include increased traffic congestion, developer’s
credibility, public outreach, impact on community character and quality of life, and
environmental and infrastructure strain.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department requested that right-of way be dedicated for
20th Lane; a temporary turnaround easement be dedicated until 20th Lane is
extended to the south, alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be
considered and shall include a center landscaped island; and all improvements in
the right-of-way be constructed with all required elements and to ADA standards.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 11 through 13.

15. The Aviation Department requested the airport disclosure stipulation. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 14.

OTHER
16. 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.

17. 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 final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 16.

18. Development and use of the site are 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, the
Rio Montaña Area Plan, and with the character of the surrounding area.

2. The requested R1-10 zoning district is consistent with surrounding zoning and
development patterns in the general area.

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

3. The proposal will offer additional housing options within the area, contributing to
the mix of housing types in the vicinity, and aiding in alleviating the housing
shortage in Phoenix.

Stipulations:

1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.

3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

8. 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.

9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.

12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

13. 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.

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.

Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024

15. In the event archeological 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 Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

16. Prior to final 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
Samuel Rogers
June 25, 2024

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 23, 2024
Conceptual Building Elevations and Renderings date stamped April 23, 2024 (6 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped April 23, 2024
Correspondence (7 pages)

Z-72-15

BASELINE RD

C-2*
DR
CIA
Z-101-76
VALEN
C-2*

20TH DR
C-2 SP* Z-110-07
Z-SP-2-18

LN
NHAM
20TH LN
LN C-2 SP*
R1-6 * D RA
2N B Z-SP-10-16
Z-121-03 2
R1-10 AW
N DR R1-10*
F
BE Z-109-00 Z-66-01 S-1
VE
RLY
RD S-1
HARWELL RD
ME
LO DY DR

23RD AVE
IAN DR

19TH AVE
23RD DR 22ND AVE 21ST DR
R1-10 PRD *

20TH AVE
S-1 Z-47-17
DESERT LN
R1-8 * R1-10 *
Z-121-03 Z-121-03
ALICIA DR S-1 LATONA LN

R1-18 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99

SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
*
R1-18 * R1-10 * R1-10
Z-121-03 Z-58-21 Z-31-21

¯ Miles 27TH AVE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST
16TH ST
32ND ST 40TH ST 48TH ST
24TH ST
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 19TH AVE
I-10
BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD

Z-58-24

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: John Fox
FROM: S-1 ( 4.54 a.c.)
DATE:
4/30/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-58-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R1-10 ( 4.54 a.c.)
4.54 Acres QS 01-24 D-7
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 4 N/A
R1-10 16 20
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 385
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-58-24.aprx
Z-72-15

BASELINE RD

C-2*
DR
CIA
Z-101-76
VALEN
C-2*

20TH DR
C-2 SP* Z-110-07
Z-SP-2-18

LN
NHAM
20TH LN
LN C-2 SP*
R1-6 * D RA
2N B Z-SP-10-16
Z-121-03 2
R1-10 AW
N DR R1-10*
F
BE Z-109-00 Z-66-01 S-1
VE
RLY
RD S-1
HARWELL RD
ME
LO DY DR

23RD AVE
IAN DR

19TH AVE
23RD DR 22ND AVE 21ST DR
R1-10 PRD *

20TH AVE
S-1 Z-47-17
DESERT LN
R1-8 * R1-10 *
Z-121-03 Z-121-03
ALICIA DR S-1 LATONA LN

R1-18 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99

SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
*
R1-18 * R1-10 * R1-10
Z-121-03 Z-58-21 Z-31-21

¯ Miles 27TH AVE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST
16TH ST
32ND ST 40TH ST 48TH ST
24TH ST
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 19TH AVE
I-10
BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD

Z-58-24

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: John Fox
FROM: S-1 ( 4.54 a.c.)
DATE:
4/30/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-58-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R1-10 ( 4.54 a.c.)
4.54 Acres QS 01-24 D-7
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 4 N/A
R1-10 16 20
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 386
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-58-24.aprx







’

–

’

 






    WILLIAM SEYMOUR CO, INC
 




 

   
-
1. FINISH GRADE.
2. FINISH FLOOR.
6615 N Scottsdale Rd #215
3. CONCRETE SLAB OR STEP - REFER TO FOUNDATION PLAN. Scottsdale, AZ 85250
4. TYP. STUCCO SYSTEM - REFER TO GENERAL ELEVATION phone: 480/626-8648
1 NOTES. e-mail: info@e-projectinternational.com
T.O.PARAPET 5. CONT. 26 GA. G.I. WEEP SCREED AT +4" A.F.G.
12 A5.1
16'-0 1/2" 6. FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILE (ICC-ESR 1647). Rev. Date Submittal
7. STONE VENEER.
8. WOOD FASCIA, PAINTED. Revision 1
R1 11-17-2023
T.O.ROOF 9. 16'-0" X 7'-0" SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR. 1st Plan Review
T.O.RIDGE
13'-0" 10. TYP. 8" WOOD SIDING.
14'-1" 11. TYP. BOARD AND BATTEN.
T.O.ROOF 12. SCUPPER, REFER TO DETAILS.
12'-6" 13. 36'' HIGH WOOD FENCE.
14. LIGHT FIXTURES.
R1
T.O.PLATE
9'-0" B.O.BEAM
T.O.PLATE 8'-0"
A. STUCCO SYSTEM SHALL BE 3/8" ONE OR TWO COAT(S) OF
8'-0" CEMENT, LIME, SAND MIX, WESTERN ONE KOTE STUCCO
8 SYSTEM (ICC-ESR 1471) ON PAPER BACKED K-LATH
(ICC-ESR 1471), ON 1-1/2" P.C.F. DENSITY, TYPE II,
T&G E.P.S. INSULATION BOARD (ICC-ESR 1471).
PROVIDE WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER OVER ALL WOOD
FRAMING - (2) LAYERS OF GRADE "D" KRAFT PAPER OR
15# FELT.
B. MAG ONE-COAT STUCCO COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, ALL
ONE-COAT STUCCO SYSTEMS SHALL BE APPLIED BY
FINISH FLOOR MANUFACTURER APPROVED INSTALLERS. AN APPROVED
0'-0" WEATHER-RESISTIVE BARRIER SHALL BE INSTALLED
OVER ALL FRAMING AND WOOD BASED SHEATHING.
C. PROVIDE (2) LAYER 30# FELT AS FLASHING AT ALL
13 1 5 4 10 7 8 2 4 5 HEADS, JAMBS, AND SILLS OF WINDOWS AND DOOR
TYP.TYP. TYP. OPENINGS.
D. PROVIDE CONTINUOUS SEALANT BEAD WHERE STUCCO
ABUTS WINDOW AND DOOR FRAMES SO AS TO PROVIDE
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" A WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER.
E. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED BY A WALL
+1'-0" ABOVE HIGHEST MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
T = DENOTES TEMPERED GLASS LOCATION
2 4 3 3
A5.1 7 A5.1 T.O.PARAPET T.O.PARAPET
A5.1 A5.1
16'-0 1/2" 16'-0 1/2"
T.O.ROOF
T.O.RIDGE
14'-6" 14 TYP. 7
8 14'-1"
T.O.ROOF 8 8
T.O.ROOF
12 13'-0" 12 12
R1 13'-1 1/2" 14 TYP. 3 3 3
T.O.PLATE 3 T.O.ROOF
11'-0" R1
R1 12'-6"
T.O.PLATE T.O.PLATE R1 T.O.PLATE
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
R1
T.O.PLATE
8'-0" B.O.BEAM
8'-0"
Plan 1700
GARAGE FINISH FLOOR FINISH FLOOR
FINISH FLOOR
0'-0" 0'-0"
-0'-4"
1 5 4 9 11 5 14 3 13 10 4 3 5 4 2 7 5 1 5 2 4 3 4 4
TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
T.O.PARAPET
A5.1
16'-0 1/2"
8 T.O.ROOF
T.O.RIDGE
14'-1" 14'-3 1/2"
T.O.ROOF
12'-6"
R1
T.O.PLATE
B.O.BEAM 9'-0"
8'-0" T.O.PLATE
8'-0" Date: 11-17-2023
Project No. 0421-2
Drawn By: MM,KV
Checked By: ED
FINISH FLOOR Approved By: ED
0'-0"
1 4 3 5 2 8 3 4 7 7 5 10 2 7 5 3 13
Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
TYP. TYP. TYP.
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.1







”

– –
–

”

 






    WILLIAM SEYMOUR CO, INC
 




 

   
Sarah Stockham

From: Carlo
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 1:57 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Case Z-58-24 : Opposition to Proposed Zoning Development Near Wyndham Square HOA

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Dear Members of the Phoenix Planning and Development Department,

I am writing on behalf of the Wyndham Square HOA community, located near Baseline Rd and 20th Ln in ZIP
code 85041, to express our strong opposition to the proposed development of 20 houses on the empty land
adjacent to our community. As residents deeply invested in the well-being and safety of our neighborhood, we
have several serious concerns regarding this development.

1. Increased Traffic Congestion:
Our community already faces significant congestion issues, particularly at the single exit onto Baseline Rd. The
addition of 20 houses, each potentially contributing an average of 2-3 cars, would introduce approximately 50-
60 more vehicles to this already congested exit. This substantial increase in traffic volume would exacerbate
existing delays, increase the risk of accidents, and create a hazardous environment for both drivers and
pedestrians.

2. Developer’s Credibility:
The developer assigned to this project, DeLex Realty LLC, is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau
(BBB) and currently holds an "F" rating. This poor rating raises serious concerns about the reliability and
integrity of the developer, and their ability to responsibly manage a project of this scale. We question their
capacity to meet the community’s standards and to follow through on commitments to mitigate negative
impacts on our neighborhood.

Evidence for #2:

The applicant for the zoning is “John Fox”, with an email of “wscing@cox.net”

A simple google search on “wscing@cox.net”, reveals that “DeLex Realty LLC” is the real estate broker.

https://www.delexrealty.com/agents/79087-john-fox-pllc [delexrealty.com]

BBB rating of “F” with multiple complaints.
https://www.bbb.org/us/az/glendale/profile/real-estate/delex-realty-1126-1000047946 [bbb.org]

3. Impact on Community Character and Quality of Life:
The proposed development threatens to alter the character of our close-knit community. Our neighborhood
values open spaces and the tranquility that comes with lower housing density. The introduction of 20 additional
houses will not only strain our infrastructure but also detract from the peaceful environment that our residents
cherish. Increased noise, reduced privacy, and potential overcrowding are all significant concerns that have not
been adequately addressed.

4. Environmental and Infrastructure Strain:
The proposed development will likely put additional strain on our local infrastructure, including water supply,
sewage systems, and public services. Without significant upgrades to these systems, which have not been
outlined by the developer, the quality of service for current residents could deteriorate. Furthermore, we are
concerned about the environmental impact, including increased runoff and potential flooding issues, due to the
reduction of permeable land.

Given these substantial concerns, we urge the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department to
reconsider the approval of this zoning plan. The long-term welfare and safety of our community depend on
responsible and sustainable development practices. We strongly believe that this proposed development does
not align with these principles and would negatively impact our neighborhood.

We appreciate your attention to our concerns and look forward to your thoughtful consideration of our position.
Please feel free to contact me at charles.carbaj@gmail.com or 480-326-1981.

Sincerely,

Carlos Carbajal

Owner of :
2017 W. Harwell Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85041

480-326-1981

6/24/24, 1:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Questions and comments concerning rezoning case Z-58-24 and the proposed
development
H. Jewel Clark
Mon 6/24/2024 9:55 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Mike Josic

1 attachments (3 MB)
20th and South Mountain 24-4-18-SITE (6).pdf;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,

My name is Jewel Clark. I am writing regarding rezoning case number Z-58-24. My husband
(cc'd on this email) and I own property at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave (APN # 300-17-004S).
Attached you will find what we received from the applicant for your convenience and cross-
reference.

The application for rezoning and development centers on a 4.5 acre parcel which we are
adjacent to. While these plans were received and stamped by the planning department in
November of 2023, the first meeting request the surrounding neighbors received concerning
this proposal was May 17. May 17, which was a Friday, notified us of a meeting to be held by
the developers on May 18. One day's notice. The letter was postmarked May 13, which was
Monday. I was unable to attend because of a standing appointment that Saturday but my
husband went. The developer had picked a pizza parlor for the meeting. Approximately 50
concerned neighbors attended but according to my husband it was practically impossible to
hear (this was not in a reserved room away from the rest of the guests) and it was difficult for
everyone to get close to the posters of the proposal for details. However, the neighbors were
able to communicate opposition to key elements of the proposal: increased traffic, density and
multiple stories.

Approximately 1 month later, the weekend of June 15, the developer, Mr. John Fox, held
another meeting with the neighbors. We received that letter on the 10th. It was postmarked 6-4-
24. Two of our neighbors whose properties are adjacent to this proposed development had not
received a letter notifying them of the meeting. These neighbors are very concerned about how
this proposal could affect their properties and would have been there had they known about it.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGlYf9Znv8BDjTzpD%2BxlnJ0%3D
1/3
6/24/24, 1:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Some questions are:

1. Is there a minimum notification time for developers to alert neighbors within the 600 ft
minimum for these kinds of meetings?
2. How is the 600’ notification zone measured for developers to build their contact list?
3. Should the ADU’s have been shown on the drawings they provided? They were not.
4. I may be misreading the plans attached but on the lot diagram page under Project
Description, it appears they list R1-10 density as 3.5-5 DU/AC. My understanding is that
R1-10 is 3-3.5, 4.5 with bonus. Do the submitted plans have to be correct or corrected to
be allowed to move forward?
5. Should there be updated plans at this point that are not designated “pre-application”? If
so, the neighbors have not seen anything different from the attachment enclosed.
6. Will this application also require a general plan amendment application?
7. My husband said the developers told the neighbors that approval for
developments/rezoning no longer went through the city council. According to what I could
find on the city website, rezoning requests, either opposed or unopposed were still heard
by the city council as the final arbiters. Is this incorrect?

I'd also like to let you know that according to my husband, the plan had not changed at all in the
month the developer had to incorporate neighbor concerns. They showed up with exactly the
same designs/plans. So, on two fronts, they don't appear to be listening to or trying to work with
any of the surrounding neighbors who would be affected by this development, and they said
they are planning on presenting this proposal to the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee at the next meeting on July 9.

Since the neighbors confronted them with the fact that nothing had changed, they said they
would look into making changes and call another meeting before the SMVPC meeting but I'm
concerned that yet again, the neighbors may not be notified in a timely enough fashion to
attend whatever meeting is scheduled.

So to recap the timeline:

1. Application submitted Nov. '23
2. First notice to neighbors mailed May 13, 2024 for a May 18 meeting. We got our letter the
day before and so did many others. Developers heard from approx. 50 people that density
was too high, 2 story designs were opposed and concern about increased traffic in an
existing development with only one entrance/egress point onto Baseline were paramount,
among other concerns.
3. One month later, June 15, developer held another meeting. Notification letter postmarked
6-4, received on 6-10, at least by us. Some neighbors confirmed they did not receive their
letters by the meeting date and missed the meeting. Plans had not changed at all.
Neighbors reiterated concerns.
4. Developers said they would look at some changes and call another meeting but said they
were still planning on moving the application through to the SMVPC July 9 meeting.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGlYf9Znv8BDjTzpD%2BxlnJ0%3D
2/3
6/24/24, 1:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

The main issues: density, traffic for the north neighborhood, multiple stories
The current plan is requesting a density of approximately 4.5, which means they are requesting
a bonus designation and I do not see where they are calling out enhancements per city
requirements to justify or earn the points for such density. In addition, this parcel is fully
bordered on the east by S-1 acre+ homes, which would be a tremendously incongruous jump in
density if approved. As well, there are no developments surrounding that are more than 3.5 R1-
10 in density, making 4.5 units per acre unprecedented for the immediate area.

This new development would be an extension of an existing development to the north with only
1 entrance/exit onto Baseline Rd for an already existing 54 houses. There is no way for this
addition to have another entrance/exit onto a different street because it is surrounded by
already developed land. There is no light at Baseline for the current neighborhood and the
residents say that getting in and out of their neighborhood is already extremely difficult. Are
there any safety requirements for the number of houses in a development to the number of
entrance/exits? It seems like this ratio should be a concern for the city in case of evacuation or
other emergencies.

The neighborhood around this parcel has been very active in working to keep housing height to
one story, per Rio Montana guidelines, which takes into account view obstruction to South
Mountain for existing neighbors. This is a priority for the northbound neighborhood and the
east-bordering homes who don't want 2-story houses right up on their property line looking
into their backyards. The precedent for all surrounding construction we have been involved with
for single family homes has been overwhelmingly single story and that is what all the neighbors
want.

Any information, clarification, links to specific city web pages, etc. you can provide is most
appreciated. Thank you!

Sincerely,
Jewel Clark

--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGlYf9Znv8BDjTzpD%2BxlnJ0%3D
3/3
ATTACHMENT C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Date of VPC Meeting July 9, 2024
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the
northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continuance to August 13, 2024
VPC Vote 11-3

Tremikus Muhammad left the meeting bringing quorum to 14 members (ten needed for a
quorum).

Nine members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item and 19
members of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak. Four members
of the public donated their time to Jewel Clark, five members of the public donated their
time to Jai Goudeau, and two members of the public donated their time to Julian Galindo.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the
surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan, proposed
elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by presenting the
proposed stipulations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

John Fox, representing the applicant with William Seymour Co., presented the subject
site, the proposal, the surrounding zoning, alignment with the General Plan, Rio Montaña
Area Plan, and other policy plans, the existing conditions, the proposed landscape plan,
elevations, and site plan, project benefits, and the public outreach.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jewel Clark expressed concerns about the proposed development, stated concerns
about the two-story homes, and stated that the high density of the project is out of
character with the area. Ms. Clark stated that there was no mention of Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the applicant presentation and raised concerns about an
additional 200 trips that the development would generate. Ms. Clark emphasized that the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 402
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

area currently has an open feel which would be lost, leading to an increase in heat due to
reduced open space. Ms. Clark questioned whether the homes would be for rent or sale
and noted that many other homes are already being introduced into the area. Ms. Clark
stated that the developer has not had good conversations with the neighbors.

Jai Goudeau highlighted several issues, starting with the difficulty of turning left onto
Baseline Road, which can take up to 15 minutes. Mr. Goudeau noted that the existing
homes average 11,000 square feet, compared to the proposed 7,000 square feet. Mr.
Goudeau stated he is not opposed to development with fewer homes and criticized the
applicant for being unresponsive to working with the neighbors. Mr. Goudeau stated that
large vehicles would struggle to maneuver and stated that the first meeting was too small,
prompting him to request a second meeting. Mr. Goudeau explained that he reserved the
room for the second neighborhood meeting. Mr. Goudeau also expressed concerns
about the traffic circle eliminating street parking and mentioned that there are other
places where such developments would make more sense.

Jewel Clark stated that there is no guarantee that Dorothy, the property owner to the
south, will move. Ms. Clark stated that the neighborhood is healthy and diverse and does
not need this development. Ms. Clark pointed out that the first notification was not
received within the required 10-day notice period, and no solutions were provided.

Julian Galindo shared his experience as a resident for 15 years and expressed pride in
the neighborhood. Mr. Galindo compared a traffic letter with a full traffic study and voiced
opposition to the proposal. Mr. Galindo raised concerns about foot traffic, the safety of
children, and the long-term issues related to extra traffic.

Nicole Sordello stated she never received notice and suggested that there wouldn't be
an empty chair in the room if the notification had been proper. Ms. Sordello expressed
concerns about the impact of two-story homes on her privacy, noting that several lots will
back up to her property. Ms. Sordello stated the project has multiple unknowns regarding
rentals and HOA prohibitions on short-term rentals.

Joe Hernandez stated there is already heavy traffic near his residence at the entrance of
the subdivision to the north and stated that the proposal would make traffic worse. Mr.
Hernandez questioned how construction crews would maneuver, stated that the
neighborhood has been seeking to add an entry breezeway for the Wyndham Square
neighborhood, and expressed disappointment that new subdivision name may end up on
the breezeway too.

Mike Josic stated that the applicant does not own the property, and the sale is
contingent on the rezoning being approved. Mr. Josic mentioned the lack of discussion
on ADUs, which could result in about 40 households, and raised traffic concerns. Mr.
Josic argued that two-story buildings are inappropriate and stated that 20th Lane would
not likely connect to South Mountain Avenue in the near future because Dorothy, the

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

property owner to the south, is not likely to move soon. Mr. Josic urged the committee to
reject the request and stated that the proposal is the wrong project in the wrong place.

Funyung Mon stated concerns about increases traffic, expressed frustration with the
already terrible traffic, and noted that her insurance quote increased by 20% due to the
area's high accident rate.

Monica Garcia stated she is a housing lawyer, stated the neighborhood had endured
half-built houses being built and flooding issues. Ms. Garcia stated traffic concerns,
stated that the homes are small, stated that insurance premiums will keep going up, and
asked the VPC to oppose to the project.

Candice McDonald Ramsey stated she works for Corporate America, clarified that she
is not trying to hinder the City's progress and understands the need for homeownership.
Ms. Ramsey expressed a willingness to compromise and highlighted the potential upside
for existing homeowners. Ms. Ramsey acknowledged that small homes could be a good
product but considered them inferior to existing homes. Ms. Ramsey stated concerns
about construction vehicle presence, stated she appreciated the VPC hearing the
community, and stated she feels that the applicant was not listening to their voices.

Jacques Phelps spoke about the diversity in the area, mentioning that he had just
closed on a home. Mr. Phelps expressed concern that the project would adversely impact
home values and the recent investment, negatively affecting his family and what he has
built.

Chair Trent Marchuk noted for the record that 29 cards had been submitted in
opposition to the proposed development, with 0 cards in support. Chair Marchuk also
reported that a petition opposing the development had gathered 63 signatures, 31 letters
of opposition were received, and explained that of the 52 homes in the Wyndham Square
neighborhood, 29 residents were in opposition to the proposal.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Mr. Fox stated that South Mountain is a large area where R1-10 zoning is appropriate
and explained that the size of the lots is based on the Planned Residential Development
(PRD) option for R1-10. Mr. Fox emphasized that the project is designed to prevent water
from flowing into the neighborhood to the north. Mr. Fox acknowledged concerns about
the presence of two-story homes but stated that there are two-story homes in the
subdivision to the north. Mr. Fox clarified that the project has never been intended as a
rental community or proposed to include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Mr. Fox
expressed frustration, suggesting that the opposition indicates a reluctance to be good
neighbors. Mr. Fox affirmed that the development would consist of quality homes and
foster good neighborly relations.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Mr. Goudeau responded by acknowledging the presence of two-story homes in the area.
Mr. Goudeau expressed concerns that the proposed retention measures might create
issues for existing homes.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Busching asked if the applicant is interested in continuing the case
to allow more time to work with the community. Mr. Fox stated that he does not think he
can go through the process another time.

Committee Member Darlene Jackson remarked that Phoenix is growing and
emphasized the goal of building a healthy and connected city. Committee Member
Jackson inquired whether the project would contribute to building a healthy community.
Mr. Fox stated that the project includes connected sidewalks and open space and stated
that detached sidewalks could be removed to widen the street. Committee Member
Jackson questioned if it is fair to take away something to give something. Mr. Fox stated
that when the neighborhood to the north bought their homes Baseline Road was already
there.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked why a Traffic Statement was used instead of a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Mr. Rogers explained that a Traffic Statement is
appropriate for smaller developments, but not for larger ones. Committee Member
Shepard asked what the current width of 20th Lane is. Mr. Fox explained that the current
street is 28 feet wide. Committee Member Shepard stated that the development should
not include two-story homes.

Committee Member Edward Aldama stated that the original question was about
walkability and questioned why the conversation had shifted to needing wider street that
do not help with walkability. Committee Member Aldama stated that detached sidewalks
would improve walkability and that people generally avoid cul-de-sacs. Aldama
advocated for the future residents and stated that he believes the proposed walkability
would be adequate and traffic would not have a significant impact.

Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez stated that the South Mountain VPC has high
standards for community engagement, asked what issues were encountered while
working with the community, and inquired about the timeframe for connecting to South
Mountain Avenue. Mr. Fox indicated that the Wallace Group is building high-end
products in the area and stated that the timeframe for the project is to move forward as
soon as possible, aiming to start around the beginning of next year. Committee Member
Alvarez further asked about the timeframe for connecting to South Mountain Avenue. Mr.
Fox stated that the connection to South Mountain Avenue is not an empty promise,
stated that the timing of Dorothy’s move is uncertain, and noted that the City of Phoenix
requires 20th Lane to be built for an eventual connection to South Mountain Avenue. Mr.
Fox acknowledged difficulties in working with neighborhoods, stated that his team is not

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

willing to change the proposed density, and stated that his team is open to adjusting lot
sizes.

Committee Member Gene Holmerud stated that the proposal will add 20 residences to
the existing 52 residences that access the neighborhood via Baseline Road and asked
how the access compares other developments over the past ten years. Chair Marchuk
asked how many homes accessed Baseline Road on the self-storage special permit case
on 41st Street and Baseline Road. Mr. Rogers stated that over 100 homes access
Baseline Road via 41st Street and stated that he does not have statistics on access.
Committee Member Tamala Daniels stated that the VPC had approved subdivisions
with limited access in the past. Committee Member Emma Viera argued that precedent
should not dictate future decisions and emphasized the importance of unity within the
community. Committee Member Viera expressed a desire for the developer to be
invested in working with the community. Mr. Fox stated that if the neighborhood would
work with him, he would reciprocate and stated that both two-story and one-story homes
are planned.

Chair Marchuk asked the development team if they are open to stipulating a ratio of the
homes be one-story. Mr. Fox stated that the ratio could be stipulated and stated that the
mix of heights is determined by the builder.

Committee Member T. Daniels stated that the site to the north is also zoned R1-10 but
has different dimensions. Mr. Fox explained the proposal is utilizing the Planned
Residential Development option. Committee Member T. Daniels highlighted that
surrounding sites are R1-10, expressed that people seem unhappy with the access being
through the development, and asked if there is any stipulation requiring that the proposed
subdivision eventually connect to South Mountain Avenue. Mr. Rogers explained that,
per Stipulation No. 12, the City is requiring a temporary turn around at the terminus of
20th Lane that would eventually connect to South Mountain Avenue. Committee Member
Busching asked for clarification on Stipulation No. 12. Mr. Rogers explained Stipulation
No. 12 and explained the City would require 20th Lane to connect to South Mountain
Avenue if the property to the south develops with a use such as a subdivision, but not if a
use such as a single-family home is proposed.

Committee Member Busching inquired about the owner of the property to the south and
asked if an access easement across the property to the south is a possibility. Mr. Fox
stated that the subject site is owned by the same owner of the property to the south and
explained that an access easement would be a burden on the property owner to the
south. Committee Member T. Daniels asked why the property owner to the south would
put an easement on a home she currently lives in. Committee Member Busching
explained that the property owner to the south could sell an access easement at the
same time she sells the subject site.

Committee Member T. Daniels stated that when the development to the north was
rezoned, there were likely complaints from S-1 property owners in the area, explained

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

there is always resistance to smaller housing products, and stated that it is unfair to
prohibit two-story homes when the neighboring area has two-story structures. Vice Chair
Arthur Greathouse III proposed stipulating that no two-story homes be placed next to
each other. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that it could be stipulated that no two-
story home can be next to each other if the developer is willing to offer the concession.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked about using flood maps to address retention
issues. Mr. Fox responded that the proposed retention basins will maintain any onsite
water, stated that flows would be monitored by the City of Phoenix, and explained that
the development team was required to overlay the flood maps during their assessment.
Mr. Fox stated that he is willing to work with the neighborhood on anything other than
reducing the proposed density.

Committee Member Aldama asked if the development would improve flooding issues in
the immediate area. Mr. Fox confirmed the retention basins would improve water issues.

Committee Member Jackson expressed concerns about the number of proposed units
and stated that traffic concerns are not being addressed.

Committee Member Holmerud stated that there was a question about requiring a ratio
of single-story and two-story homes, stated that in the past the VPC had stipulated that
two-story homes be in the center of the development, and stated that the stipulation will
not work on the proposed development because of the small site size.

Chair Marchuk explained that the proposal is technically R1-10, but the housing product
is more similar to an R1-6 product, stated that the density in the area ranges from 2.5 to
3.5 units per acre, and stated that proposed 4 units per acre seems aggressive. Chair
Marchuk stressed the importance of community engagement and proposed taking a
month-long break to continue the case to allow more time to work with the community.
Mr. Fox agreed to continue the case and suggested that a mediator be present at the
next neighborhood meeting.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked if information on the Rio Montaña Area Plan could
be distributed to the applicant and asked for clarification on the proposed density bonus.
Mr. Rogers explained that additionally amenities can be provided in exchange for a
higher allowed density. Committee Member T. Daniels asked if the proposal had been
reviewed to ensure the proposed bonus points would allow the proposed density. Mr.
Rogers explained that the final assessment of bonus points would be determined through
the development review process. Chair Marchuk ask what the proposed density is. Mr.
Rogers explained the proposed density is 4.4 units per acre. Committee Member T.
Daniels asked about the proposal’s compliance with development standards such as
setbacks. Mr. Rogers explained that a site plan showing home locations was not
provided.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Kay Shepard made a motion to continue Z-58-24-8 to the August
13, 2024 South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting. Committee Member
George Brooks seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-3, motion to recommend a continuance of Z-58-24-8 passes with with Committee
Members Aldama, Alvarez, Brooks, Busching, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Holmerud, Jackson,
Shepard, Greathouse, and Chair Marchuk in favor and Falcon, F. Muhammed Roque,
Viera opposed.

Committee Member Alvarez expressed hope that the relationship with the community
could be repaired.

Committee Member Petra Falcon mentioned that the community had not been treated
well and stated the community has said this project is not suitable for the location.

Committee Member Holmerud stated that stipulating a percentage of two-story homes
will not work in the location.

Committee Member Jackson advocated for fewer homes and more open space.

Vice Chair Greathouse III encouraged collaboration. Chair Marchuk echoed Vice Chair
Greathouse and encouraged collaboration from the applicant and the neighborhood.

Committee Member Falcon observed that community members left the meeting and did
not get to hear the results.

Committee Member T. Daniels explained that if the vote were to reject the project, it
would not stop the development process and stated that Arizona has various housing
formations. Committee Member T. Daniels mentioned the skyrocketing housing market,
the developer’s agreement to return, and the importance of creating a win-win situation.
Committee Member T. Daniels encouraged everyone to bring a positive attitude to the
discussion

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Date of VPC Meeting August 13, 2024
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the
northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continuance to September 10, 2024
VPC Vote 12-0

Committee Member Tamala Daniels joined the meeting bringing quorum to 12 members
(ten needed for a quorum).

Six members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item and 12 members
of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak. Four members of the
public donated their time to Jewel Clark and three members of the public donated their
time to Jai Goudeau.

Chair Trent Marchuk explained that the applicant for case Z-58-24 reached out to
request a continuance to the September 10, 2024 South Mountain Village Planning
Committee meeting. Chair Marchuk stated that a continuance was granted in the last
meeting and noted that the applicant has been working with the community but that
progress still needs to be made. Chair Marchuk stated the applicant is hopeful that
another month will yield the necessary progress, thanked the community members for
attending the meeting, and asked staff for clarification on the process.

Samuel Rogers, staff, explained that a motion to continue the case could be made.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Kay Shepard made a motion to continue Z-58-24-8 to the
September 10, 2024 South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting. Committee
Member George Brooks seconded the motion.

VOTE
12-0, motion to recommend a continuance of Z-58-24-8 passes with with Committee
Members Aldama, Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, T. Daniels, Holmerud, Jackson,
Shepard, Viera, Vice Chair Greathouse, and Chair Marchuk in favor.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 409
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Chair Trent Marchuk stated for the record that 17 comment cards had been received in
opposition to the project and thanked the community for attending.

Committee Member Marcia Busching emphasized the importance of ensuring that
people in attendance are aware of the ongoing negotiations and are able to participate.
Chair Marchuk stated his understanding that two individuals were appointed by the
community to be their representatives in the negotiations and added that others are
welcome to participate. Chair Marchuk asked about the process for people to get
involved. Mr. Rogers informed the committee that community members could reach out
to himself, the Chair, or the applicant to get involved.

Committee Member Brooks asked why there are still so many people in attendance
who are in opposition if progress is being made. Chair Marchuk stated that the need for
continued negotiation is the reason the applicant requested a continuance.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels inquired about the requirement for community
notification when a continuance is going to be requested. Committee Member Brooks
suggested that there should be a timeline to ensure people are informed when a
continuance is going to be requested. Chair Marchuk stated that the community
representatives were informed about the continuance as soon as he had heard.
Committee Member Greg Brownell commented that the community representatives are
not the only people who represent the community given the number of people in
attendance. Committee Member Gene Holmerud stated that the issue could be
resolved with a real-time website but acknowledged that this would be a significant
undertaking.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked how long prior to the meeting applicants are
required to inform the committee that a continuance is planned to be requested. Mr.
Rogers stated that applicants are allowed to request continuances up to the meeting
itself. Mr. Rogers explained that while it would be prudent to inform the community
earlier, there is no regulation requiring this. Committee Member Brooks asked what the
process would be to implement a new rule requiring earlier notification for continuances.
Mr. Rogers stated that he would have to follow up on the topic.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2024
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the
northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional
stipulations
VPC Vote 7-5

12 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item and 10 members
of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak. Four members of the
public donated their time to Jewel Clark and four members of the public donated their
time to Jai Goudeau.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the
surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan,
proposed elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by
presenting the proposed stipulations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

John Fox, representing the applicant, presented the history of the rezoning process,
including his attendance at two previous Village Planning Committee (VPC) meetings.
Mr. Fox stated that the City is recommending approval of the rezoning request, explained
that his team had provided a site plan to the neighbors that reduced the number of units
from 20 to 18, explained that he had received additional stipulations from neighborhood
representatives asking for a 16-unit proposal, explained he thought his team and the
neighbors could meet in the middle with an 18-unit proposal, and explained that his team
is now proposing a 20-unit development.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair Trent Marchuk noted that there were 22 cards in opposition to the project, with no
cards in support and explained that five cards were submitted to Jai Goudeau, five to
Jewel Clark, and one card to Mike Josic.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 411
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Jewel Clark explained where she lives and stated that she has consistently opposed an
18-unit development. Ms. Clark asked Mr. Fox about compliance with the Rio Montaña
Plan, expressed concerns about preserving the character of the area, and referenced
not opposed to a development but wants a development that fits the neighborhood. Ms.
Clark explained that she would support the proposal if it included stipulations provided by
the neighborhood representatives. Committee Member Marcia Busching asked how
the proposed neighborhood stipulations were developed and if they came from City of
Phoenix policy plans or previous cases. Ms. Clark explained that many of the
neighborhood requested stipulations came from the Rio Montaña Plan and other
rezoning cases in the area.

Julian Galindo explained he attended the meeting with the developer and that the
neighborhood had been against an 18-unit proposal, explained he is a civil engineer, and
stated that he has concerns about stormwater management and the project’s density.
Committee Member Busching asked a question regarding the retaining wall. Mr.
Galindo confirmed that he advocated for the stipulation regarding the retaining wall and
explained that the retaining wall will help to mitigate flooding concerns. Committee
Member Busching asked whether Mr. Fox was in opposition to the stipulation. Mr.
Galindo responded that the stipulation had been discussed but not agreed to.

Committee Member Greg Brownell inquired about the project's floodplain review. Mr.
Rogers explained that the project had gone through a preliminary floodplain review, but a
full grading and drainage review will occur when the development comes in for permitting.
Chair Marchuk stated that the existing homes to the north are four feet lower than the
proposed development, explained that the retaining wall will mitigate flooding issues, and
explained that Mr. Fox had agreed to the retaining wall in concept.

Kara Moreno echoed other neighbors’ concerns regarding the proposed development
and explained concerns about the impact of the development if additional street access is
not provided. Ms. Moreno emphasized the potential safety risks associated with
construction activities, including traffic and car safety. Ms. Moreno also raised concerns
about the increased length of the street, which she believed could encourage faster
driving, potentially leading to safety hazards due to speeding vehicles.

Jai Goudeau explained that he owns the first home built in the neighborhood to the
north, highlighted ongoing flooding issues, and stated traffic accidents occur every 2.5
days at 19th Avenue and Baseline Road. Mr. Goudeau expressed concerns about the
proposed street length and the temporary turnaround in the development, noting potential
difficulties for large trucks navigating the roundabout. Mr. Goudeau explained that the
community proposed several design alternatives and stated the developer backed out of
negotiations at the last minute. Mr. Goudeau expressed concerns about the meeting
noticing, stated that the HOA failed to send timely notices, and stated more neighbors
would be in attendance if they had been properly noticed. Mr. Goudeau stated that he is

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

not opposed to building a community, emphasized that all traffic from the new
development would flow through Wyndham Square, and explained the development
would effectively an extension of the Wyndham Square neighborhood.

Mike Josic voiced his understanding of the housing crisis but argued that reducing the
number of homes by four would not significantly impact the crisis. Mr. Josic emphasized
that the proposed development feels unfair to current residents and urged the committee
to vote against it.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Mr. Fox provided examples of other developments in the area that were not held to the
same requirements the neighborhood is asking his team to comply with. Mr. Fox
explained that the neighborhood’s stipulations were received too late and that the staff is
already stipulating that the site plan, elevations, and landscape plan be reviewed by the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) and the South Mountain VPC. Mr. Fox explained that the
Rio Montaña plan is an older plan and explained that he disagrees with some of the
stipulations but stated that he is open to compromise on others.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Coleman asked when other subdivisions Mr. Fox referenced were
built. Mr. Fox explained that they were constructed within the last 15 to 20 years.

Committee Member Beehler asked if Mr. Fox was the purchaser or the owner of the
property, who owns the parcel to the south, and asked about a potential access
easement across the parcel to the south. Mr. Fox explained that he is in escrow for the
purchase of the subject site, explained that the property owner also owns the parcel to
the south, and stated the owner is not open to an access easement across the property
to the south.

Chair Marchuk asked staff to explain the City's perspective on the street termination. Mr.
Rogers explained that the proposed street must be designed to accommodate a future
connection to the parcel to the south and stated that most potential uses for the southern
parcel, aside from a single-family home, would require this connection to the subject site.

Committee Member Busching asked if Mr. Fox was amenable to any of the
neighborhood’s stipulations. Mr. Fox explained which stipulations his team is not okay
with and others he is willing to accept.

Committee Member Coleman asked if Mr. Fox was willing to comply with a retaining
wall if approved by grading and drainage standards. Mr. Fox affirmed that he would
comply if necessary.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

Chair Marchuk mentioned that although the stipulation language was new, the content
had been received on Sunday.

Committee Member Petra Falcon asked if the current plan was the one that the
Planning Commission would see. Mr. Rogers explained that the stipulations are written
so that the plans will come back in front of the VPC through the PHO process and
explained that Mr. Fox may provide updated plans for the Planning Commission hearing.

Committee Kay Shepard asked about the VPC’s ability to stipulate to a specific site
plan. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the VPC can stipulate conformance to a site plan.
Committee Member Busching asked if there was an updated site plan. Mr. Rogers
confirmed that the applicant had submitted an updated site plan date stamped
September 5, 2024 and stated the site plan was included in the slide deck he had sent to
the VPC.

Committee Member Greg Brownell expressed concerns about denying the case and it
getting approved at the next hearing body without the VPC’s input. Committee Member
Brownell emphasized the need for more discussion, stated that an old plan does not
imply a weaker plan, and clarified that the overlay is not law but guidance. Committee
Member Brownell explained that if the committee opposes this, they are essentially out of
the discussion, expressed a preference to keep the case at the committee level,
explained that both citizens and the builder will need to compromise, and explained he
would like the development team to return with a proposal that the committee can vote
on.

Committee Member Beehler stated that the VPC should deny the project, stated the
proposal does not adequately address key access issues to Baseline Road. expressed a
belief that the property owner is selling prematurely, and explained that the owner should
sell the entire property.

Committee Member Holmerud stated that most arguments against the development
focus on perceived shortcomings and explained that the fact previous developments
were not held to the same standards should not prevent negotiations on the proposed
project.

Committee Member Brownell stated that the committee should not decline the proposal
and recommended continuing the case and explained that declining the project would
result in losing the opportunity for the VPC to impact the development.

Committee Member Beehler expressed that this project is unsuitable for the site at this
time and reiterated the recommendation to decline.

Committee Member Busching mentioned her usual support for the neighborhood but
expressed a different perspective due to the relatively small community. Committee
Member Busching explained that people have the right to buy and develop land and

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

referenced that the Wyndham Square builder had constructed the development with a
stub road intended to connect to the adjacent parcel to the south. Committee Member
Busching acknowledged the hard work of the neighbors and the VPC and stated she
would like to make a motion to approve the rezoning request with additional stipulations.

Committee Member Holmerud questioned the financial viability of a project with 16 lots.
Chair Marchuk stated that his understanding is that 18 lots is the minimum acceptable
for the development.

Chair Marchuk echoed Committee Member Busching, explained that VPC members, the
applicant, and community representatives had been meeting weekly since the previous
month’s continuance of the case, and explained that the applicant declined to attend the
final meeting. Chair Marchuk explained that the site plan had been extensively reviewed
and explained that the layout makes the most sense with the current parcel dimensions.
Chair Marchuk stated that negotiations were going well until the neighborhood provided a
list of stipulations they would like considered, stated there was not adequate time to vet
the neighborhood stipulations, stated there is still an opportunity for negotiation, and
stated it may be premature to pass the project in its current form.

Committee Member Shepard stated that 18 lots are the bottom line for the developer,
while 16 lots are the maximum for the community and expressed skepticism about any
potential movement by either party on the proposal.

Committee Member Beehler explained there are ongoing access issues and expressed
concern about burdening neighbors with additional traffic.

Committee Member Shepard inquired about the traffic generated by an 18-lot
subdivision per day. Mr. Fox stated that traffic was analyzed by peak hour trips, not per
day.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Mark Beehler made a motion to deny Z-58-24-8. Committee
Member Gene Holmerud seconded the motion.

VOTE
4-8, motion to recommend denial of Z-58-24-8 fails with Committee Members Beehler,
Coleman, F. Daniels, and Holmerud in favor and Committee Members Brooks, Brownell,
Busching, Falcon, T. Muhammad, Shepard, Greathouse, and Marchuk in opposition.

MOTION
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to approve Z-58-24-8 with
additional stipulations. Committee Member Lee Coleman seconded the motion.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

VOTE
7-5, motion to recommend approval of Z-58-24-8 with additional stipulations passed with
Committee Members Committee Members Busching, Coleman, Falcon, Holmerud T.
Muhammad, Shepard, and Greathouse in favor and Committee Members Beehler,
Brooks, Brownell, F. Daniels, and Marchuk and in opposition.

Vice Chair Greathouse explained that he had been a part of the process, including
multiple iterations of the site plan, and stated it is unfortunate to have reached this point.
Vice Chair Greathouse explained that good collaboration had been happening but was
lost along the way. Vice Chair Greathouse stated that this is the most logical and feasible
plan and wished there was more support, as a lot of work had gone into reaching this
point. Vice Chair Greathouse emphasized that nobody was going to win everything or
concede on every negotiation point and stated his support for the project.

Chair Marchuk stated that he would be voting in opposition to the motion to approve and
explained there are several unresolved questions that should have been addressed and
still have the potential to be resolved.

VPC recommended stipulations:

1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.

3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

8. 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.

9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.

12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

13. 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.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

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. In the event archeological 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 Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

16. Prior to final 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.

17. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 18 UNITS.

18. A MINIMUM OF 30% OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE
COVERED PORCHES IN THE FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD AT A
MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET EACH AND AT A DEPTH OF AT
LEAST SIX FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

19. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR 80% OF THE LOTS SHALL BE
LIMITED TO ONE STORY AND 26 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

20. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE TWO-STORIES AND 32
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

21. A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE GROSS PROJECT AREA SHALL BE
RETAINED AS COMMON AREA, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

22. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN MULTIPLE COLORS,
EXTERIOR ACCENT MATERIALS AND TEXTURAL CHANGES THAT
EXHIBIT QUALITY AND DURABILITY SUCH AS BRICK, STONE,
COLORED TEXTURED CONCRETE OR STUCCO, OR OTHER MATERIALS
TO PROVIDE A DECORATIVE AND AESTHETIC TREATMENT, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8

23. ALL STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS LENGTHS SHALL BE LESS THAN
50% OF THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE FAÇADE, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24. FRONT SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE
STAGGERED BY A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

25. LOT WIDTHS SHALL VARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

26. THE SOUTHERN END OF THE STREET SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPING AND
ROD IRON VIEW FENCING TO ENHANCE THE VIEW OF SOUTH
MOUNTAIN, UNTIL 20TH LANE IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH OF
THE PROPERTY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

27. A RETAINING WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN
BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

28. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024, AS MODIFIED BY THE
ABOVE STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that Stipulation No. 20 be deleted, as it seeks to limit the height of
the development to 32 feet. The maximum height permitted with the R1-10 Zoning
District is two stories and 30 feet and cannot be exceeded via a rezoning stipulation.
Since the maximum height requirement of 30 feet will apply, a stipulation limiting the
height to 30 feet is extraneous.

ATTACHMENT D

To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: October 7, 2024

From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner

Subject: ITEM NO. 6 (Z-58-24-8) - APPROXIMATELY 710 FEET NORTH AND 305
FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 20TH AVENUE AND
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE

The purpose of this memo is to recommend the removal a stipulation in response to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation and to convey
additional opposition correspondence that has been received regarding this rezoning
request.

Rezoning Case No. Z-58-24-8 is a request to rezone 4.54 acres located approximately
710 feet north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District) to allow a single-family residential subdivision.

The South Mountain VPC heard this request on September 10, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations by a
vote of 7-5.

Staff recommends that Stipulation No. 20 be deleted, as it seeks to limit the height of
the development to 32 feet. The maximum height permitted with the R1-10 Zoning
District is two stories and 30 feet and cannot be exceeded via a rezoning stipulation.
Since the maximum height requirement of 30 feet will apply, a stipulation limiting the
height to 30 feet is not appropriate.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:

1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
Z-58-24-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 7, 2024

requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.

3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

8. 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.

9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.

12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
Z-58-24-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 7, 2024

and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

13. 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.

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. In the event archeological 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 Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

16. Prior to final 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.

17. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 18 UNITS.

18. A MINIMUM OF 30% OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE
COVERED PORCHES IN THE FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD AT A
MINIMUM OF 60 FEET EACH AND AT A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6 FEET, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

19. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR 80% OF THE LOTS SHALL BE
LIMITED TO ONE STORY AND 26 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

20. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE TWO-STORIES AND 32
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

21. A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE GROSS PROJECT AREA SHALL BE RETAINED
20. AS COMMON AREA, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

22. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN MULTIPLE COLORS, EXTERIOR
21. ACCENT MATERIALS AND TEXTURAL CHANGES THAT EXHIBIT QUALITY
AND DURABILITY SUCH AS BRICK, STONE, COLORED TEXTURED
Z-58-24-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 7, 2024

CONCRETE OR STUCCO, OR OTHER MATERIALS TO PROVIDE A
DECORATIVE AND AESTHETIC TREATMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. ALL STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS LENGTHS SHALL BE LESS THAN
22. 50% OF THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE FAÇADE, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24. FRONT SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE
23. STAGGERED BY A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

25. LOT WIDTHS SHALL VARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
24. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

26. THE SOUTHERN END OF THE STREET SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPING AND
25. WROUGHT IRON VIEW FENCING TO ENHANCE THE VIEW OF SOUTH
MOUNTAIN, UNTIL 20TH LANE IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH OF THE
PROPERTY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

27. A RETAINING WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN
26. BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

28. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
27. SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024, AS MODIFIED BY THE
ABOVE STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Enclosure
Opposition correspondence (236 pages)

July 1, 2024
My name is Constance Box and I live at 7719 S. 20th Dr. I am writing in opposition to the
application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which
proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for
R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
● Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.

Traffic- problems
● In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
● Limit construction to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do

to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,
Constance Box

7719 S 20th Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85041

:ƵůǇϭƐƚ͕ϮϬϮϰ
DǇŶĂŵĞŝƐĂǀŝĚ<ĞǇĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞĂƚϮϬϬϲtĞƐƚƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞ͕WŚŽĞŶŝǆǌϴϱϬϰϭ͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌͲϱϴͲϮϰͲϴƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZͲϭϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ͘
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

ĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^Ͳϭ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZͲϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ϭϳͿ
ĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ͲϭĂŶĚZͲϭϬŝƐZͲϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆ͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘

dƌĂĸĐͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮͲŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŚĞĂǀǇƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬƚŚĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ

x ZͲϭϴĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨϮͲƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ϮϮͲϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ;ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽĂϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚǇĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶͲĨŽƌǁĂƌĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐϮϬϮϭ
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ͘tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽīƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽīďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

>ĂƐƚůǇ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůǇϮ
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW͘

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ͘

,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘

,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘,ŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ͕

ĂǀŝĚ<ĞǇĂŶĚEŝŬŝ<ĞǇ
ϮϬϬϲtĞƐƚƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞ
WŚŽĞŶŝǆǌϴϱϬϰϭ

7/9/24, 2:14 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8
James Betterment
Mon 7/8/2024 4:50 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (22 KB)
Opposition-letter_Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_James-Betterment.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Please see attached for my opposition to rezoning case Z-58-24-8.£

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANF8CoQjfVdJkzQ3ok2BFps…
1/1
July 4th 2024
My name is :ĂŵĞƐĞƩĞƌŵĞŶƚand I live at 8008 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041. /ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ^-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ.

Loss of Privacy:
x dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĨŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂďƵƫŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬŽĨ
ŵǇƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŝǀĂĐǇƚŚĂƚŵǇĨĂŵŝůǇĂŶĚ/ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĞŶũŽǇ͘dŚĞ
ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽƵƐĞƐŝƐƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƐĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚƐŝŐŚƚůŝŶĞƐŝŶƚŽŵǇďĂĐŬǇĂƌĚĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŝŶƚŽŵǇŚŽŵĞ͕ƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐ
ŽƵƌƉƌŝǀĂĐǇ͘

/ŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞEŽƟĐĞĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ/ŶƉƵƚ͗
x /ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂŶǇŶŽƟĐĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂŶĚŚĂĚƚŽďĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚďǇ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŚĞĚĂǇďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘

Density- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o This deŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-ϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆ͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.

dƌĂĸĐ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ tǇŶĚŚĂŵ^ƋƵĂƌĞ͕
a 52-home neŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇ
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while

ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐ
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐ ƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞsame ƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

Housing design- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞs ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-ƐƚƌĞĞƚ-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘

x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůǇďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚDƌ͘&ŽǆƐĞŶƚ
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕on June 15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ ƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
ĐŽƵůĚĚŽƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘

He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ,
:ĂŵĞƐĞƩĞƌŵĞŶƚ

8008 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041

July 8th, 2024
My name is Jose Angel Perea and I live at 8004 S 20th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 properties at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
● Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits including mitigating heat and preserving local
character to the surrounding communities.

Traffic- problems
● In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while
also directly across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees
greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.

Traffic- solutions
● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
● Limit construction to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

This proposal has apparently been planned since last year since the elevations are dated
September 2023 and the first plan review was scheduled for November 2023. Yet Mr. Fox sent
out the first meeting notice to the neighbors for May 18, 2024. As of this writing, Mr. Fox has
made absolutely no effort to work with any of the neighbors and address the concerns listed
above, which he has heard in person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the
surrounding property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, on June 15, the plan had not changed and there were several neighbors
who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend. His
colleague told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he
could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting
has been called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,
Jose Angel Perea

8004 S 20th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041

07-09-2024
My name is Miguel Rubio and I live at 8020 s. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-1 property to the maximum
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐproposed development.

Density- problems
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇestablished homes on S-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;Rio Montana Plan, pg. ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Appropriate density trĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
goals ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.

dƌĂĸĐ- problems
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐ
greateƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐits guidelineͿ͕Ăsingle-ĨĂŵŝůǇ
house generates 10 trips per day on average. dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬtrips per day on average, not
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ, property, and health.

dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x R-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
neighborhood.
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

Housing design- problems
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x The dĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
designs.
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x Require dĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- problems
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞ ŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟng heat.
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x Require high emissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī the building walls and shade the ground.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
based on the lot orŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ to also keep the sun Žī building walls.

dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůǇďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚMr. Fox sent
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞto the neighbors ĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚo the
surrounding property owners ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕on June 15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ told the neighbors who ǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
ĐŽƵůĚĚŽƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘

He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. This ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ,
Miguel Rubio

8020 s. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041

7/9/24, 2:24 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8
Nicki Sordello
Mon 7/8/2024 7:02 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (22 KB)
Opposition-letter_Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_Nicole.Sordello.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Good evening,

Please see the attached letter in opposition to the rezoning proposal Z-58-24-8. If you have any
questions or request further information, please let me know.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Nicole Sordello

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEEAv%2BuhPpRDvjgN2TWr…
1/1
July 8th 2024
To whom it may concern,
My name is Nicole Sordello, and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041. /ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐthis
ůĞƩĞƌin ƐƚƌŽŶŐ ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-
24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ^-1 property to the
ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10.
I am opposed to ƚŚŝƐƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌ ŵƵůƟƉůĞreasons:

Loss of Privacy:
x dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĨŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂďƵƫŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬŽĨ
ŵǇƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŝǀĂĐǇƚŚĂƚŵǇĨĂŵŝůǇĂŶĚ/ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĞŶũŽǇ͘dŚĞ
ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽƵƐĞƐŝƐƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƐĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚƐŝŐŚƚůŝŶĞƐŝŶƚŽŵǇďĂĐŬǇĂƌĚĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŝŶƚŽŵǇŚŽŵĞ͕ƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐ
our privacy.

/ŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞEŽƟĐĞĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ/ŶƉƵƚ͗
x /ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂŶǇŶŽƟĐĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚrequest ĂŶĚŚĂĚƚŽďĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚďǇ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŚĞĚĂǇďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘

Density- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x This ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-18 or approx. 2 houses per
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
character ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.

dƌĂĸĐ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ Wyndham Square,
a 52-ŚŽŵĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇ

ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌentraŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ, which sees
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
Impact Study Manual ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬtrips per ĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ, property, and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞlopment.

Housing design- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-story homes, which are not
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌconceptual
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
each lot does nothiŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘

x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůǇďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚDƌ͘&ŽǆƐĞŶƚ
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕which he has heard in person at the only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕on June 15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ ƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
could do to incorporate these ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘

He has not listened to, much less acted on, ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ concerns. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ,

Nicole Sordello

8008 S. 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041

7/3/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Andrew Maifield
Tue 7/2/2024 12:38 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Samuel Rogers££

I Andrew Maifield am a resident of the Windham square housing community.£ £Homeowner.£ £I
am sending this email to the city of Phoenix to dispute The rezoning allowing housing
developers using£ windham square as the main entrance and exit of the new housing
community.£ £The rezoning will negatively affect my family my home value and the quiet good-
hearted small community we live in.£ £Rezoning for 20 homes on 4.5 acres is unrealistic.£ Small
cramped homes like that would reduce the values of neighboring homes and especially my
home value.£ The large amount of traffic will be a burden on my small children and our family.£ I
would like to request the city block Windham squares access to that lot for good.£ Permanently
block and wall that access point.£ The veterans retired city workers current city workers
hardworking tax paying citizens that live in this community do not want to change it please
respect our request.£ £Thank you Samuel for helping with this matter.££

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAH3GQQI1TJtMhTZ5XgE8uro…
1/1
7/3/24, 10:57 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition letter- Case Number Z-58-24-8
D. Fong
Tue 7/2/2024 3:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (19 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Mr. Samuel Rogers,

Please see my opposiƟon leƩer aƩachment relaƟng to Case Number: Z-58-24-8 to be included in the file
for the Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng on Tuesday, July 9, 2024.

Regards,
David Fong
2004 W. Harwell Rd - Wyndham Square neighborhood

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPA0z1r%2FTKdAuF7P8YXC…
1/1
July 2, 2024
My name is David Fong and I live at 2004 W. Harwell Rd. I am writing in opposition to the
application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8submitted by John Fox, which
proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-
10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.

Traffic- problems
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baselinewhile also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 tripsper day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulatedbefore any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
x The development proposesan unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- solutions
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivityand high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.

He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,
David Fong

2004 W. Harwell Rd.

7/3/24, 11:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Eduardo Camacho
Tue 7/2/2024 8:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (21 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8 (2).docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,

please see attached letter of opposition

thank you,
Eduardo Camacho

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMotTcJOi0pKnXWGedXoxR8…
1/1
:ƵůǇϮ͕ϮϬϮϰ
DǇŶĂŵĞŝƐĚƵĂƌĚŽĂŵĂĐŚŽĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞĂƚϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞWŚŽĞŶŝǆϴϱϬϰϭ͘/Ăŵ
ǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌͲϱϴͲϮϰͲϴ
ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞ ϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞ
ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZͲϭϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ͘
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

ĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^Ͳϭ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZͲϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͘ dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ϭϳͿ
ĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ͲϭĂŶĚZͲϭϬŝƐZͲϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆ͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ ǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘

dƌĂĸĐͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮͲŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ ŚĞĂǀǇƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬ ƚŚĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ďǇϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚ ĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ

x ZͲϭϴĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨϮͲƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ϮϮͲϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ;ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽĂϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚǇĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶͲĨŽƌǁĂƌĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐϮϬϮϭ
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ͘tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽīƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶ ŽīďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

>ĂƐƚůǇ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůǇϮ
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW͘

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ͘

,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽ ǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘

,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘,ŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ͕
ĚƵĂƌĚŽĂŵĂĐŚŽ

ϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞ
WŚŽĞŶŝǆϴϱϬϰϭ

7/3/24, 10:21 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Jai Goudeau
Tue 7/2/2024 1:51 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (2 MB)
My letter of opposition.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Jai Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Road Phoenix, 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the Rezoning request filed for approximately 4.5 acres site located at 700’ feet
north and 305’ feet west of the northwest corner of South Mountain Ave and 20th Ave, rezoning
case number Z-58-24 to change zoning from S1 to R1-10.

Attached is my letter of opposition.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAAx1C%2FGhd%2BNNnma3l…
1/1
To whom it may concern,

My name is Jai Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Road Phoenix, 85041. I am
writing in opposition to the Rezoning request filed for approximately 4.5 acres site
located at 700’ feet north and 305’ feet west of the northwest corner of South Mountain
Ave and 20th Ave, rezoning case number Z-58-24 to change zoning from S1 to R1-10.

I am President of the Board for the Wyndham Square Neighborhood Homeowners
Association and resident. I am opposed to rezoning due to the increased traffic impact
it would have in our community. Our neighborhood only has one road into it on 20 th
drive from Baseline Rd with Branham Ln and Harwell Rd connecting to 20 th Ln which
dead ends south of Harwell Rd. (see Fig 1 attached). 20th Dr is a standard road with a
traffic circle mid-block. Our community already struggles to pull out onto Baseline Rd
during peak hours, often having to wait long times, especially if making a left-hand turn
in the mornings due to people entering the businesses on the north side.

I am concerned about the layout of the proposed development only having one road in
and if it has sufficient space for construction vehicles, emergency vehicles and
deliveries to turn around. I believe it is most likely that those vehicles would end up
backing all the way up to Harwell Rd to exit the development.

When we purchased our home in 2003, we paid a premium to have a view of the
mountains and if the proposed development were to continue with two story homes
built, it would obstruct our view of the mountains ruining our investment.

The developer proposes adding retention areas against the properties on the north side
of the development. A major concern that we have is that when our homes were built,
they had to have their own water retention area in the yard. This puts our homes way
below the property’s elevation to the south where the proposed development will be.
The property sits approximately 4 feet higher than our property. Attached are images
showing the elevation below the fence line (see fig2 attached) (ladder is 6feet for
reference) and an overview of the elevation of the two properties (see fig3 attached). In
the past we have had problems with our yards flooding due to heavy rainfall and the
water entering our yard through tunnels left by wildlife. We see this currently with the
residence at 2009 W Harwell Rd when the resident to the south put up a block wall
around their property causing their yard to flood every time it rains. This problem will be
prevalent for my property as well as the property of 2017 W Harwell and 7828 S. 20th
Ln.

Mr Fox has not made an effort to work with the neighborhood regarding these concerns
and I believe he has not acted in good faith to address the community and involve us in
the process based on the following:

In the first meeting he arranged at a Barro’s Pizza parlor on a Saturday afternoon in
which I received notice 4 days prior and some did not receive notice at all. There was
loud music playing and very few people could hear his presentation or respond. I
requested that we have another meeting in a more suitable location so I reserved a

meeting room at Caesar Chavez Library on May 28 th for June 15th and he said he would
send out notices.

At the second meeting on June 15 th , John Fox was in attendance with Mike Haer. In the
meeting several attendees addressed their concerns as well as I and Mike Haer said he
wanted to take this information and address his team and he and John Fox agreed to
have another meeting to discuss their findings prior to the hearing.

I contacted John Fox as I saw a survey crew doing measurements on 06/18/24. I asked
John if he was still having another community meeting as he requested or if he was
moving forward with the Village Planning Committee meeting to which he replied that he
was not going to have another neighborhood meeting because he wanted to have a
constructive meeting and was tired of getting beaten up. I reminded him that he and
Mike requested that we have another meeting and he told me that he had not spoken to
Mike and that Mike would be out of town during the Village Planning Committee
Meeting. I then requested that John send me a copy of his mailing list that he has been
using to notify the neighborhoods because there have been so many residents saying
that they are not receiving them. He told me that he sent the notices out to the
residents within 600 feet of the property boundary and that he would send me the
mailing list that he used.
Upon evaluation of the mailing list, I discovered that the 600 feet covered only
approximately half of the neighborhood.

I believe that a developer acting in good faith would have sent out notices to the entire
neighborhood being affected in this situation. It was determined that approximately 23
of 52 homes were not notified of the meetings by John Fox.

Fig 1

Fig2

Fig3

7/3/24, 10:56 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Zoning case number Z-58-24-8
Lori
Tue 7/2/2024 3:14 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

2 attachments (910 KB)
Lori_0001.jpg; Lori_0002.jpg;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABjbaVltbUWVnkCaGWPIt0Q…
1/1
7/3/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABjbaVltbUWVnkCaGWPIt0Q…
1/1
7/3/24, 10:25 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABjbaVltbUWVnkCaGWPIt0Q…
1/1
7/3/24, 11:21 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Joe Hernandez
Tue 7/2/2024 10:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers ;Jaigoudeau@gmail.com

1 attachments (3 MB)
Z-58-24-8 SIGNED HERNANDEZ N PG 1.zip;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Greetings
As Requested£
Nadine Hernandez

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJNrcuQOJotBpSbqcmpXBhc…
1/1
7/3/24, 11:02 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Case # Z-58-24-8
Natividad Tapia
Tue 7/2/2024 8:05 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (21 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,

Please see the aƩached leƩer of opposiƟon.

Thank you,
NaƟvidad

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACFpVS4SvfREtLk7Nn65sEI…
1/1
ϬϳͬϬϮͬϮϬϮϰ
DǇŶĂŵĞŝƐEĂƟǀŝĚĂĚdĂƉŝĂĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞĂƚϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞWŚŽĞŶŝǆϴϱϬϰϭ͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐ
ŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ ƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌͲϱϴͲϮϰͲϴ
ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞ ϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞ
ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZͲϭϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ͘
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

ĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^Ͳϭ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZͲϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͘ dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ϭϳͿ
ĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ͲϭĂŶĚZͲϭϬŝƐZͲϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆ͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ ǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘

dƌĂĸĐͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮͲŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ ŚĞĂǀǇƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬ ƚŚĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ďǇϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚ ĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ

x ZͲϭϴĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨϮͲƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ϮϮͲϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ;ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽĂϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚǇĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶͲĨŽƌǁĂƌĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐϮϬϮϭ
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ͘tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽīƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶ ŽīďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

>ĂƐƚůǇ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůǇϮ
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW͘

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ͘

,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽ ǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘

,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘,ŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ͕

EĂƟǀŝĚĂĚdĂƉŝĂ
Natividad Tapia
ϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞWŚŽĞŶŝǆϴϱϬϰϭ

7/8/24, 1:43 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
D D
Wed 7/3/2024 5:06 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (83 KB)
DD Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.pdf;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hi Samuel,£

Here is my opposition letter. Also, I wanted to include£that a lot of people are
continuously£doing turn arounds on our driveway and it is getting very annoying.

Thank you.
Delilah Delgai

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAONxZOXAefJKm%2FOexTz…
1/1
07/03/2024,
My name is Delilah Delgai and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041. I am wri ng in
opposi on to the applica on for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submi ed
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to mul ple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
proper es. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addi on to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at tradi onal
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transi on density for all east and southern neighbors
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densi es
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solu ons
● Appropriate density transi on between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construc on but with appropriate accommoda ons
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will s ll further the city’s housing
goals and provide addi onal benefits to the surrounding communi es as outlined below.

Traﬃc- problems
● In rela on to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suﬀers severely
from diﬃcult entrance/exit due to the heavy traﬃc on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traﬃc than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Genera on Report 10th Edi on (Maricopa’s Traﬃc
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traﬃc to an
already bo lenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traﬃc poten ally generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and wai ng to see if that will eventually become an op on to
alleviate traﬃc issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traﬃc conges on poten ally
impac ng safety, property, and health.
Traﬃc- solu ons

● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traﬃc for the exis ng
neighborhood.
● Traﬃc impact study and recommenda ons s pulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compa ble with the recommenda ons of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solu ons
● Limit construc on to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orienta on on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current s pula ons list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mi gate the heat island eﬀect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radia ng heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solu ons
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irriga on to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● S pulate the most conserva on-forward building prac ces for housing insula on and
heat island mi ga on currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Ac on Plan. We don’t have me for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all proper es to help keep the
sun oﬀ the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orienta on) to also keep the sun oﬀ building walls.

Lastly, as of this wri ng, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no eﬀort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
mee ngs he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second mee ng, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second mee ng no ce le er in me to a end.
He told the neighbors who were able to a end that he would go back and see what he could do

to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC mee ng, but no such mee ng has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompa ble and insensi ve to the surrounding neighbors. This applica on
should not move forward.

Respec ully,
Delilah Delgai

7711 S. 20th Drive
Phoenix AZ, 85041

7/5/24, 2:23 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Lorenzo Gonzales
Wed 7/3/2024 1:37 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (6 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8[8370].docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Sent from Mail [go.microsoŌ.com] for Windows

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADlyoCEcD9JFpN1i%2B%2BJ…
1/1
7/3/24
My name is Lorenzo Gonzales] and I live at 7815 S 20th Dr. I am writing in opposition to the
application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which
proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-
10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
• This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
• It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
• Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.

Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
• According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

• R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
• Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
• The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
• Require lower density zoning and more open space.
• Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
• Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
• Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
• Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
• Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do

to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,
Lorenzo Gonzales

7815 S 20th Dr. Phx AZ 85041

7/8/24, 1:39 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Wyndham SQ: Rezoning Hearing
Melissa Sunia
Wed 7/3/2024 3:28 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Michelle Teodoro

1 attachments (21 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8_MS.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Please see the attached letter.£

R,
Melissa Sunia

2022 West Branham Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAN4%2BZQe89E2CieZFCyrvn…
1/1
7/3/24
My name is Melissa Sunia and I live at 2022 West Branham Lane. I ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽ
ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕
ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚ
ĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ.

Density- problems
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚ ĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with ŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
density areas. (ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-ϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆ͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ.

dƌĂĸĐ- problems
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮ-ŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂsŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐ ƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ

x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

Housing design- problems
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞs ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- problems
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ ĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

>ĂƐƚůǇ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůǇ2
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚlater͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽ ĂƩĞŶĚ.

,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘

,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. HŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ͕
Melissa Sunia

2022 West Branham Lane

07/03/2024,
My name is Shangel Cas llo and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041. I am wri ng in
opposi on to the applica on for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submi ed
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to mul ple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
proper es. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addi on to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at tradi onal
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transi on density for all east and southern neighbors
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densi es
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solu ons
● Appropriate density transi on between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construc on but with appropriate accommoda ons
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will s ll further the city’s housing
goals and provide addi onal benefits to the surrounding communi es as outlined below.

Traﬃc- problems
● In rela on to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suﬀers severely
from diﬃcult entrance/exit due to the heavy traﬃc on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traﬃc than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Genera on Report 10th Edi on (Maricopa’s Traﬃc
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traﬃc to an
already bo lenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traﬃc poten ally generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and wai ng to see if that will eventually become an op on to
alleviate traﬃc issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traﬃc conges on poten ally
impac ng safety, property, and health.
Traﬃc- solu ons

● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traﬃc for the exis ng
neighborhood.
● Traﬃc impact study and recommenda ons s pulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compa ble with the recommenda ons of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solu ons
● Limit construc on to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orienta on on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current s pula ons list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mi gate the heat island eﬀect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radia ng heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solu ons
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irriga on to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● S pulate the most conserva on-forward building prac ces for housing insula on and
heat island mi ga on currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Ac on Plan. We don’t have me for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all proper es to help keep the
sun oﬀ the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orienta on) to also keep the sun oﬀ building walls.

Lastly, as of this wri ng, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no eﬀort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
mee ngs he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second mee ng, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second mee ng no ce le er in me to a end.
He told the neighbors who were able to a end that he would go back and see what he could do

to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC mee ng, but no such mee ng has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompa ble and insensi ve to the surrounding neighbors. This applica on
should not move forward.

Respec ully,
Shangel Cas llo

7711 S. 20th Drive
Phoenix AZ, 85041

07/05/2024
My name is Dawn Smith and I live at 7816 South 20th Lane, Phoenix Az 85041͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-1 property to the maximum
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐproposed development.

Density- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-18 or approx. 2 houses per
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽw.

dƌĂĸĐ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮ-home
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬtrips per ĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨety, property, and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ

x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Limit ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕trees/shade- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
heat island miƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ to also keep the sun Žī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘

>ĂƐƚůǇ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only 2
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚlater͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ.

,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘

He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ,
Dawn Smith

7816 S 20th Ln
Phoenix, Az 85041

7/8/24, 2:31 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Oppose the Zoning Change Filed by John Fox - Case # Z-58-24-8
Fy M
Thu 7/4/2024 4:57 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (19 KB)
Oppose Zoning Change,-case # Z-58-24-8.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Good morning Samuel Rogers,

Please see attached for the opposition letter.
I, Funyung£Mon, the resident and homeowner at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ
85041. I missed the past two meetings because the meeting notice was mailed out
very£late. When I received the notice, the meeting date was already£past.

Respectfully,
Funyung£Mon,
8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAALQIdTpXuJIiYkKB6uKHaU…
1/1
07-04-24
My name is Funyung Mon and I live at 8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041 for more than 15
years. I am writing in opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number
Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property
to the maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
x This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
x It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined
below.

Traffic- problems
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly
across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than
a neighborhood.
x According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10 Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
th

Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with
the current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing
footprint on each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be
exacerbated from that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do

to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,

Funyung Mon
The homeowner/resident at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85041

Gabriel Betancourt

7823 S. 20th drive

Phoenix. AZ 85041

For: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department, Samuel Rogers, John Fox

In regard to zoning change application #Z-58-24-8

My name is Gabriel Betancourt, I am the property owner at 7823 S. 20th drive and have been
here since June of 2009. Please accept this letter as testimony of concern against the rezoning
proposal near the Wyndham Square community. The is a small, semiprivate neighborhood that
is only accessible through a private cul-de-sac street. This is one of the main reasons that
attracted me to purchase my home. I know many families in the neighborhood and keep an eye
out for each other. I understand local traffic patterns, events and community attitude towards
our small neighborhood. Approval of the rezoning application will allow entrance to a new
residential development via OUR neighborhood and disrupt our peace of mind tremendously.
We can anticipate two years of construction, an increase in traffic during and after. Deliveries,
school buses, city services, and emergency response time will increase, and the peace/love of
our little neighborhood will decrease. The Wyndham Square community should not carry the
burden and aftermath for a landlocked development project. We should not give up the reason
why we chose to live here and why we stay.

Please feel free to reach me anytime at betancourtfamily@yahoo.com

7/8/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition letter for case Z-58-24-8 to be heard at SMVPC meeting July 9
H. Jewel Clark
Sat 7/6/2024 1:42 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

July 5, 2024

To the SMVPC,

My name is Jewel Clark and my husband and I live at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave. I am wriƟng in
opposiƟon to the applicaƟon for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submiƩed by John
Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-
10, which is 4.5 (bonus).

I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
£
Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R1-10 properties at no
more than standard 3.5 or less density. This development proposes a bonus density of
4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all eastern and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
o Allowing such inappropriate density is unprecedented for all approved single-
family development in the immediate area.
Density- solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R1-10 is R1-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations for
the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing goals
and provide additional benefits including mitigating heat and preserving local character
for the surrounding communities.
£
Traffic- problems

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKtVh%2BlNDTJEmAsoIgM5q…
1/3
7/8/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also
directly across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater
traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic Impact
Study Manual [maricopa.gov] references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-
family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not including
traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
£
Housing design- problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the majority of
the surrounding homes, which are single-story. All single-family homes approved in the
surrounding area since 2018 have stipulated single-story with the exception of Larkey
Estates, which was originally approved in 2004. That said, all homes along 20th Ave.
adjacent to the proposed project are single story, as are other established developments
such as the nearby Silva Estates and Magdelana Estates.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front and back porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
£
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from that
much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKtVh%2BlNDTJEmAsoIgM5q…
2/3
7/8/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity [en.wikipedia.org] and high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
£
This proposal has apparently been planned since last year since the elevations are dated
September 2023 and the first plan review was scheduled for November 2023. Yet Mr. Fox sent
out the first meeting notice, with less than the 10 days required lead time, to the neighbors for
May 18, 2024. As of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
£
At the second neighborhood meeting on June 15, the plan had not changed and there were
several neighbors who later confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in
time to attend. His colleague told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back
and see what he could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but
no such meeting has been called.
£
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
£
Respectfully,
Jewel Clark
£
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
£
£

--£
£ H. Jewel Clark
££hjewelclark@fastmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKtVh%2BlNDTJEmAsoIgM5q…
3/3
07-04-24
My name is Lucille Heine and I live at 2115 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
● Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.

Traffic- problems
● In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
● Limit construction to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do

to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,
Lucille Heine

2115 W. Harwell Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85041

7/8/24, 2:41 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24
Jai Goudeau
Sat 7/6/2024 12:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (739 KB)
Petition of opposition.pdf;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPhQ2h56IUlCn4%2Fe%2Fa…
1/1
7/8/24, 2:52 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Letter of opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
ameliagoudeau@gmail.com
Mon 7/8/2024 10:45 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (149 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.pdf;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Mr. Samuel Rogers,
Please find the attached letter of opposition for zoning case number Z-58-24-8.

~Amelia Goudeau~
# 602-460-5545
The mind is everything, what you think you become!

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABRHQsTBfUvcvV1sa0utpU4…
1/1
July 8, 2024
My name is Amelia Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, Az 85041. I am wri ng in
opposi on to the applica on for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submi ed
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to mul ple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
proper es. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addi on to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at tradi onal
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transi on density for all east and southern neighbors
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densi es
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solu ons
x Appropriate density transi on between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construc on but with appropriate accommoda ons
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will s ll further the city’s housing
goals and provide addi onal benefits to the surrounding communi es as outlined below.

Traﬃc- problems
x In rela on to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suﬀers severely
from diﬃcult entrance/exit due to the heavy traﬃc on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traﬃc than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Genera on Report 10th Edi on (Maricopa’s Traﬃc
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traﬃc to an
already bo lenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traﬃc poten ally generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and wai ng to see if that will eventually become an op on to
alleviate traﬃc issues is not good planning.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traﬃc conges on poten ally
impac ng safety, property, and health.
Traﬃc- solu ons

x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traﬃc for the exis ng
neighborhood.
x Traﬃc impact study and recommenda ons s pulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compa ble with the recommenda ons of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solu ons
x Limit construc on to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orienta on on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current s pula ons list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mi gate the heat island eﬀect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radia ng heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solu ons
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irriga on to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
x S pulate the most conserva on-forward building prac ces for housing insula on and
heat island mi ga on currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Ac on Plan. We don’t have me for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all proper es to help keep the
sun oﬀ the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orienta on) to also keep the sun oﬀ building walls.

Lastly, as of this wri ng, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no eﬀort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
mee ngs he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.

At the second mee ng, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second mee ng no ce le er in me to a end.

He told the neighbors who were able to a end that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC mee ng, but no such mee ng has been
called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompa ble and insensi ve to the surrounding neighbors. This applica on
should not move forward.

Respec ully,
Amelia Goudeau

2013 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, Az 85041

7/8/24, 3:29 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Mike Josic
Mon 7/8/2024 1:12 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (62 KB)
Mike Josic Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.pdf;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear Mr. Rodgers,

Please add my letter and voice to oppose the proposed development and zoning change for
case number££Z-58-24-8.
Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter.

Thank£you,

Mike Josic
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480-967-6644

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABT3bnGjhpBEuvww07X2%2…
1/1
MAKAHFHJ
*#*($/ 8*)-);
8)($. $#' *.$) *6)/#+-*+-/8)'$5/HFHF<*4/# *4)/$)5;#*)$7;NKFJG<
(6-$1)"$)*++*.$1*)/*/#++'$1*)*-5'*+()/)-9*)$)".)4(-AKNAHJAN.4($3
8 *#)*7;6#$#+-*+*../*-9*)JAGF;6#$#$.J(*++*.*-(4'1+'-.*)./*/#$.+-*+*.5'*+()/<

).$/8A+-*'(.
• #$.+-*+-/8$.*--*)H.$.B./).*4/#C8./'$.##*(.*)AG+-*+-1.<#
)*-/#)6./.$.-*--8#*(.*)AGF+-*+-1./)*(*-/#)./)-I#$.5'*+()/+-*+*..*)4.).$/8*J• #$.).$/8$.$)*).$./)/6$/#/#.4--*4)$)"5'*+')B//-$1*)'TSI$)++-*+-$//-).$1*)).$/8*-''./).*4/#-))$"#*-.6$/##*(.*)AG+-*+-/8<
• /$.)*/'$")6$/#/#$* *)/)')6#$#-*(().'*6-).$1./*6-.*4/#
*4)/-&)"-4').$/8./+./6)'*6-)#$"#-).$/8-.');+"
).$/8A.*'41*).
• ++-*+-$/).$/8/-).$1*)/6)AG)AGF$.AGN*-++-*7*)4.<''*6$)"*)./-41*)4/6$/#++-*+-$/*((*1*).*-/#)5$-*)()/)
.4--*4)$)")$"#*-#**.6$''.1''4-/#-/#$/8=.#*4.$)""*'.)+-*5$$1*)')/.
$)'4$)"($1"1)"#/)+-.-5$)"'*'#-/-/*/#.4--*4)$)"*((4)$1.<

- A+-*'(.
• )-'1*)/*$)++-*+-$/).$/8;/#*)'8)/-)@7$/$./#-*4"#8)#(,4-;KHA#*(
)$"#*-#**/*/#)*-/#*)/*.'$)<#)$"#*-#**'-8.4-..5-'8-*($ 4'/
)/-)@7$/4/*/##58/- *).'$)6#$''.*$-/'8-*..-*(*((-$'
.#*++$)")/-)/-)@7$/;6#$#.."-/-/- /#))$"#*-#**<
*-$)"/*/# -$+)-1*)+*-/GF$1*)B -$*+=.- (+//48
)4'--)./# -+*-/.$/."4$'$)C;.$)"'A($'8#*4.")-/.GF/-$+.+-
8*)5-"<#/6$''$)-./- /*)'-8*3')&)$"#*-#**8HFF/-$+.
+-8*)5-";)*/$)'4$)"/- +*/)1''8")-/8-.$)/.<
• *.*4/#*4)7$/@)/-))*4)/*)@/#')$.4--)/'8$)"'$5*)*-/#
*-.'4/4-)6$1)"/*.$/#/6$''5)/4''8*()*+1*)/*''5$//- $..4.
$.)*/"**+'))$)")*.)*/#$)"/*''5$/$(($/+-*'(.<
• $-)(-")85#$'.6$''.4%//*/#.(/- *)".1*)+*/)1''8$(+1)"./8;
+-*+-/8;)#'/#<

- A.*'41*).
• AGN).$/8BGF#*(.C/*-4/#*5-''$(+/*)/- *-/#7$.1)")$"#*-#**<
• - $(+/./48)-*(()1*)..1+4'/*-)8++-*5'.*--9*)$)"@5'*+()/<

*4.$)".$")A+-*'(.
• #5'*+()/+-*+*..)4)&)*6))4(-*HA./*-8#*(.;6#$#-)*/*(+1'6$/#/#
-*(()1*).*/#$* *)/)')/*+-.-55$6./**4/# *4)/$)B$* *)/)');
+"../*-8<
• #.$")-.#5)*/$)*-+*-/+*-#.;)*)A./-/A$)""-")/-).*-*/#-.$")/4-
'()/.-*(()8/#$* *)/)')$)/#$-*)+/4'.$").<

*4.$)".$")A.*'41*).
• $($/*)./-41*)/*.$)"'A./*-8B(*./$(+*-/)/C<
• ,4$-+-*)/+*-#.<
• ,4$-.*(.$")./*$)*-+*-/"-"./#/*)*//#./-/<
• ,4$-(*--#$//4-'5-$/8)+'()/@*-$)/1*)*)'*/.<

/$.')@'$(/;/-.@.#A+-*'(.
• #4--)/.1+4'1*).'$.//-.*)$/#-.$**)-/.$6'&./**(+'86$/#/#4--)//-
).#(./-+');#*65-;''*6$)"4+/*LFR#*4.$)"**/+-$)/*)#'*/*.)*/#$)"/*
($1"//##/$.')//#/6$''7-/-*(/#/(4#-**-.*-$)")
-$1)"#/<
/$.')@'$(/;/-.@.#A.*'41*).
• ,4$-'*6-).$/89*)$)")(*-*+).+<
• ,4$-4.*5$''!**$--$"1*)/*+-*5$**'$)"<
• ,4$-#$"#($..$5$/8)#$"# -**)"(/-$'.<
• 1+4'//#(*./*).-51*)A*-6-4$'$)"+-1.*-#*4.$)"$).4'1*))#/$.')
($1"1*)4--)/'86$/#$)/#$/8*.)'$")6$/#/#$/8=.HFHG'$(/1*)')<
*)=/#51(*->4.$)...4.4'?/*4-'$(/#)"<
• ,4$-.#/-.*)/#./;.*4/#)6./.$.*''+-*+-1./*#'+&+/#.4)*/#
4$'$)"6''.).#/#"-*4)<
• ,4$-+./-*)/)&+*-#.B6#$#++-+-*($))/'8./@6./$)".*)/#
'*/*-$)/1*)C/*'.*&+/#.4)*4$'$)"6''.<

#$.+-*+*.'#.++-)/'8)+')).$)'./8-.$)/#'51*).-/+/(-HFHI)
/#-./+')-5$66..#4'*-*5(-HFHI</ -<*7.)/*4//#-./(1)")*1/*/#
)$"#*-.*- 8GN;HFHJ<.*/#$.6-$1)"; -<*7#.(.*'4/'8)**-//*6*-&6$/#)8*/#
)$"#*-.)-../#*)-).'$./*5;6#$###.#-$)+-.*)//#*)'8H(1)".#
''/*+-.)//#$.+')/*/#.4--*4)$)"+-*+-/8*6)-.*-#5$)"$/++-*-/# <
//#.*)(1)";*) 4)GK;/#+')#)*/#)")/#-6-.5-')$"#*-.6#*
*)-(/#8$)*/-$5.*)(1)")*1'3-$)1(/*3)< $.*''"4/*'/#
)$"#*-.6#*6-'/*3)/#/#6*4'"*&).6#/#*4'*/*$)*-+*-//#.
*)-).*-/# 4'8O (1)";4/)*.4#(1)"#.)''<

#.)*/'$./)/*;(4#'../*);)8*/#)$"#*-=.*)-).< $.5'*+()/+')$.*(+'/'8
$)*(+1')$).).$15/*/#.4--*4)$)")$"#*-.<#$.++'$1*).#*4')*/(*5*-6-<

.+04''8;
$& *.$
HFHF<*4/# *4)/$)5;#*)$7;NKFJG

7/8/24, 3:35 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Ravi Sharma
Mon 7/8/2024 2:57 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Ravi Sharma ;H. Jewel Clark

1 attachments (20 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8 (1).docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear Mr. Rogers,

We are attaching a letter to register opposition to the proposed development being discussed
tomorrow in case number Z-58-24-8.££

Regards,

Ravi & Snigdha Sharma

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADN4YVKsxwJCoCyS87P%2…
1/1
July 8, 2024
Our names are Ravi & Snigdha Sharma and we live at 8012 S 20th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041. We
are writing in opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-
8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the
maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
We are opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density - problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 properties at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density - solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits including mitigating heat and preserving local
character to the surrounding communities.

Traffic- problems
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while
also directly across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees
greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.

Traffic - solutions
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.

Housing design - problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.

Housing design - solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade - problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

This proposal has apparently been planned since last year since the elevations are dated
September 2023 and the first plan review was scheduled for November 2023. Yet Mr. Fox sent
out the first meeting notice to the neighbors for May 18, 2024. As of this writing, Mr. Fox has
made absolutely no effort to work with any of the neighbors and address the concerns listed

above, which he has heard in person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the
surrounding property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, on June 15, the plan had not changed and there were several neighbors
who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend. His
colleague told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he
could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting
has been called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.

Respectfully,

Ravi & Snigdha Sharma

8012 S 20th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ, 85041

07-09-2024
My name is Stephanie Bell and I live at 8020 s. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďǇ:ŽŚŶ&Žǆ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞǌŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐproposed development.

Density- problems
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďǇŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Appropriate density trĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-ϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆ͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.

dƌĂĸĐ- problems
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ tǇŶĚŚĂŵ^ƋƵĂƌĞ͕
a 52-ŚŽŵĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚǇ
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞǆŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐ
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉort as ŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůǇ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚǇďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇϮϬϬtrips per ĚĂǇŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞǆŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůǇďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
prŽďůĞŵƐ.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůǇ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚǇ, property, and health.

dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚǇĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

Housing design- problems
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌǇŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂPlan to preserve views to
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
other ƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌǇ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞstreet.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚǇ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘

Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- problems
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚǇǌŽŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůǇĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůls.

dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůǇďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚDƌ͘&ŽǆƐĞŶƚ
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽǆŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.

ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ŽŶ:ƵŶĞ15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞǇĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ ƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽ ĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
ĐŽƵůĚĚŽƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůǇϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘

He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
plan is ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůǇ,
Stephanie Bell

8020 s 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041

7/31/24, 4:48 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Zoning Case Z-58-24-8
LM
Tue 7/23/2024 8:55 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (3 MB)
Opposition letter Z58248_LM.pdf;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello,
Please see my attached full letter regarding Zoning Case z-58-24-8

Lynnette Myers
7828 S 20th Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAAJQQ7eQgLxPoHKjBU%2F…
1/1
July 2024
My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S. 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041-7716 I
am writing in stern opposition to the application for development and rezoning case
number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of
currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am absolutely opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on
S-1 properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10
property at no more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a
bonus density of 4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at
traditional <=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and
southern neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower
densities towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between
lower and higher density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
• Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses
per acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate
accommodations for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still
further the city’s housing goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding
communities as outlined below.

Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-
home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood
already suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on
Baseline while also directly across from a commercial shopping center
entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s
Traffic Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a
single-family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will
increase traffic to an already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips
per day on average, not including traffic potentially generated by
ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently
being lived on for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will
eventually become an option to alleviate traffic issues is not good
planning.
• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion
potentially impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

• R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
• Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals
for rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which
are not compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to
preserve views to South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are
inconsistent with the vast majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-
story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage
entrances or other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana
Plan in their conceptual designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
• The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply
with the current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60%
housing footprint on each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that
will be exacerbated from that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
• Require lower density zoning and more open space.
• Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
• Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
• Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation
and heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the
city’s 2021 Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to
curb climate change.
• Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help
keep the sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
• Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west
facing based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any
of the neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in
person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding
property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to
attend. He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see

what he could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but
no such meeting has been called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His
development plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding
neighbors. This application should not in anyway move forward.

ADDITIONAL PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES & CONCERNS

I absolutely have major concern about this matter since my home will be
impacted the most!!!
The existing pasture that is undeveloped land to the south of our subdivision has been
this way since prior to our subdivision was build back in 2003. This pasture was
absolutely influential in my dissension and others to purchase in Wydham Sq in the first
place. We were all looking for a small quite neighborhood where we could live and
actually know our neighbors. My choice in which lot I purchased was 100% influenced
by the undeveloped land and all the good that comes from that and the views that I
enjoy daily to the south mountains.
If the owner of this undeveloped land has sold to a developer to rezone and build they
are entitled within the appropriate guidelines of the Rio Mountain Plan; but they need to
have their own access to that development – NOT THROUGH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD!! They should have arranged with the seller access off of S 19th Ave
or off W South Mountain Ave. This option of our neighborhood should NOT even be a
possibility!!
This development as is would dramatically change the safety of our neighborhood and
my home! Regardless of random drivers not realizing that the neighborhood has no
outlet we have come together to make things as safe as possible with signs, cameras
and communication to help one another in our neighborhood. I have suffered both a
home burglary and a stolen car – I know these kind of crimes will only increase
dramatically for all of us with the proposed access through our community into another
community behind us.
This MUST NOT HAPPEN!!
I have always pushed for our community to become a gated community and I thing that
matter needs to be on the table again regardless of the rezoning and proposed
development to the south of us. IF somehow this matter moves forward despite our
entire neighborhood that are 100% opposed then I believe it should become mandatory
that our community have entrance gates installed to help keep us all safe!!

Respectfully,
Lynnette Myers
7828 S. 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041-7716

8/9/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

(No subject)
Butch Box
Wed 8/7/2024 4:44 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Constance Box and I live at 7719 S. 20th Dr .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Constance Box

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANKfNt9u17tOhfZPaT7invM%3D
1/1
8/9/24, 10:15 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Butch Box
Wed 8/7/2024 4:43 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Forrest Box and I live at 7719 S 20th Dr.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Forrest Box

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALJcnyQtmWBEgXNvl75ZAN…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Marylou Scadden
Wed 8/7/2024 3:03 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Opposition to Z-58-24-8

My name is MaryLou Scadden and I live at 7807 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Best regards,

MaryLou Scadden

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEXjDjCEv6dJnOA5bLrvZqQ…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:25 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Z-58-24-8
Andrew Maifield
Thu 8/8/2024 6:24 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Opposition to rezoning Z-58-24-8.£ £The new house will disproportionately effect the families lyin the
neighboring communities.£ £I would like the city to leave some S1 property in south Phoenix.£ That's
part of the rich and diverse history of our community.£ Thank you.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIkAHHy4Z9BMkdbOG0lJUB4…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:23 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Carlo
Thu 8/8/2024 1:58 PM
To:PDD Long Range Planning ;Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Carlos Carbajal and I live at 2017 W. Harwell Rd, Phoenix AZ, 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. £
I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Thanks,
Carlos

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAAu%2BldgCrJJBg2tS3SiXuF…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:25 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
CESAR TRUJILLO
Thu 8/8/2024 9:37 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Cesar Trujillo and I live at 7819 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Sincerely

Cesar Trujillo

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIlSCRAwGrpDnU79hJXUD9g…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
D. Fong
Thu 8/8/2024 3:13 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Mr. Samuel Rogers,

My name is David Fong and I live at 2004 W. Harwell Rd. in the Wyndham Square neighborhood.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development.

I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Regards,

David Fong

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADbTp0YtlWZBk%2BHL179D…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:17 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Lori
Thu 8/8/2024 6:32 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Ernest Coscarelli and I live at 2008 W Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Thank you.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACv24lRVLEMPk6UttQh0pfU…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:23 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Lorraine Gloria
Thu 8/8/2024 2:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Our names are Ernie and Lorraine Gloria and we live at 7813 S. 20th Ln., Phoenix, AZ 85041. The
neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of this development. We remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAP5xc3ywtO1Mgtr%2BZZ%2F…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:21 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Lori
Thu 8/8/2024 6:33 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Lori Coscarelli and I live at 2008 W Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Thank you.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK1f%2BGK5AkPYj%2BBH%…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:22 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Melissa Sunia
Thu 8/8/2024 1:45 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Michelle Teodoro

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Melissa Sunia and I live at 2022 West Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
R,
Melissa Sunia
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAINm45KMt%2B1GsMbNzLA…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Natividad Tapia
Thu 8/8/2024 5:33 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello,

My name is NaƟvidad Tapia and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Thank you,

NaƟvidad Tapia

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAECAXhWl%2BNpMhS2J%2F…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:58 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Alicia Sainz
Fri 8/9/2024 8:24 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:hjewelclark@fastmail.com

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Alicia Sainz and I live at 8250 S 20th Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to
this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the
Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is
not it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Thank you very much,

Alicia Sainz
623-329-3606

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADjQz6nJI79GrdD29we2xxI%3D
1/1
8/13/24, 8:59 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Apposition Z-58-24-8.
Carlos Ruiz
Fri 8/9/2024 8:39 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:hjewelclark@fastmail.com

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,£

My name is Carlos Ruiz £and I live at 8250 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041 . I am writing in opposition to
the proposed development Z-58-24-8. This broker has not made changes to his plans that the
neighbors can support.£ I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is
compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.£

£The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£ I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Sincerely,
Carlos Ruiz
623-329-3606

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKWJv2VG79ROjjGl%2F9%2…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:50 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Christian Griepenstroh
Fri 8/9/2024 11:50 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jaigoudeau@gmail.com ;Michelle Teodoro

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,
My name is Christian Griepenstroh and I live at 7710 S 20th Drive, Phoenix AZ, 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
I am unable to attend next Tuesday's meeting due to a work event so I would like to donate my time to
Michelle and Jai to speak on our behalf on this item.
Have a great weekend,
Christian G.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAATZ09xZ1R1HhmjSqlzrdj0%3D
1/1
8/9/24, 10:26 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
D D
Fri 8/9/2024 6:25 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

8/9/2024,£

Good morning,

My name is Delilah Delgai and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041 .

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Sincerely,

Delilah Delgai

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALAKmFv6FXVAoDEhWjOYijc…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:54 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Eduardo Camacho
Fri 8/9/2024 3:22 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,

My name is Eduardo Camacho and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer had made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Thank you,
Eduardo Camacho

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAP1k%2BRVvcWBFv%2FMpf…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:58 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

OPPOSITION TO Z-58-24-8
LM
Fri 8/9/2024 7:08 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix AZ 85041

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
L Myers

"Everything you've wanted is on the other side of fear" £–George Addair

Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANxJOI9QLu1FqzrxyBPY18w…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:26 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
S.C
Fri 8/9/2024 6:48 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

8/9/2024,£

Good morning,

£My name is Shangel Castillo and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041 .

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development.£ I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Sincerely,££

Shangel Castillo£

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFwh1Fz6ralKmWNKiqN0ujQ…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:00 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Dawn Smith
Sat 8/10/2024 4:18 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jaigoudeau@gmail.com ;Michelle Teodoro

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

£

My name is Dawn Smith, and I live at 7816 S 20th Ln Phoenix AZ 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAN%2FbO2kkn5dHhDkWkT6i…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:59 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8
Michael Jordan
Sat 8/10/2024 6:51 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Department,

I am wri ng to oppose rezoning case Z-58-24-8 due to the serious impact it will have on traﬃc and access to
Baseline Road. Baseline Road is already heavily congested, and during the day, it’s nearly impossible to make a
le turn, just wai ng for 1 car to gain access to baseline during the busy mes could add up to 10 minutes to
a commute, even if they are taking a right turn. The proposed rezoning will only worsen this issue, making it
even harder for residents to safely and eﬃciently use this vital road.

In addi on, this rezoning will increase residen al traﬃc in front of my house by 200 percent, further disrup ng
our community. There have been no significant changes to the rezoning plans to address these concerns. The
added traﬃc and accessibility challenges are too severe to ignore, and they threaten the quality of life in our
neighborhood.

Please reject this rezoning proposal to protect our neighborhood’s safety, accessibility, and quality of life.

Thank you for your considera on.

Sincerely,

Michael Jordan
7804 s. 20th ln,
Phoenix, AZ , 85041
Michael.d.jordan2@hotmail.com
480-248-5261
10 August 2024

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOxHZpe7qr5NpfUp3AIap28…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:00 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Ronald Thompson
Sat 8/10/2024 8:37 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Ronald Thompson and I live at 7728 S 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041 ( Lot 26 of the
Wyndham Square Association) .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADoapTBpB05Cr0znvtAGCJw…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Amelia Goudeau
Sun 8/11/2024 4:21 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello Samuel,

My name is Amelia Goudeau and I live at 203 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, Az 85041 .

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Thank you,
~Amelia Goudeau~
£ #602-460-5545
The mind is everything, what you think you will become.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANPur4yOteRPu0E2WwhBL5…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
David Key
Sun 8/11/2024 6:15 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is David Key and I live at£2006 W. Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041 [google.com]£in
Wyndham Square. The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes
to the plans that would warrant our support of this development. I remain opposed to this
development in its current form.

Thank you for your consideration£in this matter.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKNW1hE8IL1ElEfuBxIhAn0%…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Rezoning Case No. Z-58-24
Jai Goudeau
Sun 8/11/2024 4:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

08/11/2024

Re: Rezoning Case No. Z-58-24

To: Samuel Rogers, City of Phoenix Village Planner
Joshua Bednarek, City of Phoenix Planning and Development Director
South Mountain Village Planning Commi ee

Dear Mr. Bednarek, Commi ee and Department Members,
I am wri ng to express my concerns related to the S-1 to R1-10 rezoning for the proposed development of land
owned by Dorothy M. Hallock for the benefit of John Fox and William Seymour Co, Inc., referenced in the case
number cited above. My family and neighbors are concerned the necessary thresholds for rezoning approval,
and ongoing neighborhood concerns about the proposed development, have not been sa sfactorily addressed
by the developer and exis ng landowner. This proposal is not compa ble with the scale and character of the
neighborhood and adjacent residen al uses. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Area Plan in several
respects. There are unique challenges presented in this area related to exis ng proper es including livestock,
infrastructure, and a history of flooding on this site and adjacent proper es.
In addi on, the proposal does not meet the requirements of R1-10 for lot coverage, rear and side set-back
distances, and minimum common space areas. In fact, they are not even defined for review by the City, the
Village Planning Commission, or the neighborhood stakeholders. We do not agree that this rezoning should be
completed as a Planned Residen al Development case, which allows the pe oner to overcome the
standard zoning requirements without variances. PRDs are typically reserved for larger subdivisions. The
standard zoning requirements, including the lot coverage, rear and side setbacks, and common space area
requirements, are there to protect the community from significant changes in the character of the community.
It appears it will be necessary to not only rezone the Subject site, but to obtain variances from the City for a
number of the required zoning elements in order to develop it as proposed.
The developer has entered into an agreement to purchase the land from Ms. Hallock, con ngent upon the
success of this change in zoning from S-1 to R1-10. The sale will not take place unless the rezoning is completed,
which is a self-imposed condi on created by the property owner. Please note:
x There are no provisions of the S-1 zoning which create a hardship for the current property owner.
x There are no special circumstances or condi ons applying to this land or its current use, which do
not also apply to other proper es in the community.
x The rezoning and what appear to be the need for extensive variances is not necessary for the
preserva on or enjoyment of the owner’s property rights.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABusD2n4ZrBFr2LwR8lZ%2F…
1/3
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Our neighbors and family have determined that the approval of this rezoning applica on will be detrimental to
people living and working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property owners, and to the welfare of the public in
general.
Traﬃc Concerns: The development of the subject site, as proposed, will cause a significant increase in vehicular
traﬃc in adjacent residen al areas, including on extremely ght and narrow streets which were not originally
designed to accommodate another development. Studies should be undertaken to determine if it is
appropriate to bring the traﬃc into this proposed development from the north, or from the property owner’s
adjoining lot to the south, where there is a higher capacity and wider city street close to a main arterial (19th
Avenue). This is an op on available to the property owner and developer, and it is possible to design an entry to
the Subject site in this way. We do not know why Ms. Hallock has previously objected to providing an easement
for this purpose, which makes it another self-imposed condi on.
Flooding Concerns: There are unknown impacts this development may cause to the surrounding proper es
including drainage from flooding. The Subject site already has a history of flooding, and the prior flooding has
detrimentally impacted proper es to the north. Further decreasing the ability of the land to accommodate
flooding, or raising it out of the current 500-year floodplain level, will nega vely impact the surrounding
proper es. Because civil engineering drawings and finished floor or street eleva ons are not available for
review, it is impossible to know how much the development will further impact the surrounding proper es.
Many of the neighbors abu ng the Subject site have sep c systems designed to flow toward this property
which could be impacted by diversion of any drainage onto their proper es. As designed, the proposed
development has virtually no open space or common areas, the lot coverage appears to be greater than what is
allowed by R1-10 zoning, and given the history of flooding this is a significant concern to the community. A
hydrology, floodplain and drainage study, as well as civil engineering drawings detailing how the drainage will
be addressed, should be reviewed and evaluated prior to approval of this rezoning proposal, to determine if
rezoning of this site is suitable for the surrounding community.
Infrastructure: There are also infrastructure concerns for this type of higher density infill development related
to water connec on capacity, sewer connec ons and wastewater capacity. It is unknown whether a water and
sewer connec on to the north in a 20+ year old development, designed to meet the needs of the number of
houses there, would accommodate the addi onal homes proposed due to its age and previous design. A
further study and report should be required to determine if addi onal sewer capacity, modifica on of the
current wastewater system, a li sta on and possibly changes to easement distances will be necessary in the
exis ng surrounding neighborhoods in order to meet the latest 2021 wastewater design standards for a new
development. The Planning and Development Department at the City of Phoenix should provide a technical
review to the Village Planning Commission and aﬀected neighborhood stakeholders.
Rio Montana Area Plan: The Subject rezoning proposal conflicts with numerous elements cited in the Rio
Montana Area Plan. It is not in conformance with the vision of the area or what we have seen from other area
developments which encourage pedestrian and equestrian ac vity. It does not achieve a density transi on from
north to south in a decreasing manner, and is in opposi on to the General Plan and Land Use Map for the area
which indicates a maximum density of 3.5. There is no explana on of how the developer intends to reach the
90 “bonus points” needed for density greater than 3.5 du/acre or why the proposed density meets the
requirements of R1-10 zoning. Bonus points are also typically applied in much larger subdivision PRD cases, not
in sites as small as this one, in these types of infill loca ons.
The zoning applica on indicates that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Map, but it
exceeds it. The ability to achieve bonus points and a breakdo100wn of how they are applied to this proposal
should be available for review and considera on by the Village Planning Commi ee and the neighborhood
stakeholders. Many developments in this area have setbacks for horse trails or pedestrian trails. They also
contain perimeter walls with landscape features to prevent one long slab of concrete block facing into
neighboring areas. The Rio Montana Area Plan also encourages variety in lot width, staggered setbacks, rear
loaded garages, roof line and building façade variety and limited privacy fencing – none of which appears to be
included in the proposed development design. In many respects, the designs shown as elements to be avoided
in the Rio Montana plan (Figures 82, 83, 84, 87), are actually included in the plan for the project as designed.
Based on the issues raised above, this rezoning applica on should come in with a full preliminary plat, in
conformance with standard R1-10 zoning and without the many variances which appear to be required to
develop the site.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABusD2n4ZrBFr2LwR8lZ%2F…
2/3
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Our family and neighbors are not opposed to residen al development as long as it does not nega vely impact
the community in favor of one property owner. We recognize that a range of housing op ons is necessary to
con nue the economic viability of the community. However, in this case, it appears to present a significant
detrimental impact as designed, and no benefit to the community surrounding the Subject site. It appears this
rezoning will only benefit Ms. Hallock and the broker seeking to rezone the property, which is not in keeping
with the Core Values stated in the City’s General Plan. We urge the South Mountain Village Planning
Commission, the Phoenix Planning and Zoning Department and the City of Phoenix Planning and Development
Director to consider the above concerns, address them if possible, and work with the community stakeholders
to create a development which will meet the needs of the community.
Sincerely,

Jai Goudeau
2013 W. Harwell Road
Phoenix AZ 85041

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABusD2n4ZrBFr2LwR8lZ%2F…
3/3
8/13/24, 9:04 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
chevera trillo
Sun 8/11/2024 6:32 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Ntonyt

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
This communication is to go on record for voicing our strong opposition to the proposed
development Z-58-24-8.
We live at 23rd Ave/Dobbins and continue to be very concerned with over development in the area
that creates unsafe traffic and increased congestion in areas that are not designed for the volume of
additional traffic£this proposed development would create.
The proposed plans, in the current form, are not only bad for the surrounding neighbors, but the
broker has not made changes that can be supported by the neighborhood or listened to the concerns
of the neighborhood.

We stand in opposition with our neighbors in this development's current form.£
As has been the position of ourselves and the neighbors in this area we request SMVPC£support
development that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan.££

We respectfully encourage you to vote no and support responsible development - this proposed plan
is not responsible.£

Nick & Chevera Torrez
602.315.9774
2311 W. Dobbins Road
Phx¬85041

***

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACnXfdiUN9BCjW7rbyJZpUE…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:00 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Niki Key
Sun 8/11/2024 6:02 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Niki Key and I live at 2006 W. Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041 in Wyndham Square.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of this development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

Thank you for your consideration£in this matter.
Niki Key

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADqUkfrgFDRIhmDi1sv0zRA…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:02 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Proposed Development Z-58-24-8.
Ravi Sharma
Sun 8/11/2024 6:30 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:H. Jewel Clark ;Ravi Sharma

1 attachments (28 KB)
To the SMVPC -1.doc;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear Mr. Roger,

Attached please find my letter of opposition to Proposed Development Z-58-24-8. Let me know if you
have any questions.

Thank you,

Dr. Ravi Sharma

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANqSb6JwDhtFgp69nY0p0C8…
1/1
To the SMVPC,

My name is Dr. Ravi Sharma and I live at 8012 S 20th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain
opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with
the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a
compatible level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Thank you,

Dr. Ravi Sharma

8/13/24, 9:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Proposed Development Z-58-24-8.
Snigdha Sharma
Sun 8/11/2024 6:37 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:H. Jewel Clark ;Snigdha Sharma

1 attachments (27 KB)
To the SMVPC -2.doc;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear Mr. Roger,

Attached please find my letter of opposition to Proposed Development Z-58-24-8. Let me know if you
have any questions.

Thank you,

Mrs. Snigdha Sharma

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAD7NpZ%2BoFglBl5llreE%2F…
1/1
To the SMVPC,

My name is Mrs. Snigdha Sharma and I live at 8012 S 20th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain
opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with
the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a
compatible level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Thank you,

Mrs Snigdha Sharma

8/13/24, 9:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Alexis Mesquita
Mon 8/12/2024 4:31 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Alexis Mesquita and I live at 8020 s 20th ave Phoenix£ Az, 85041. I am writing in opposition
to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to
this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the
Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not
it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAN5v9FQzqTRCs5q3fxF72N8…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition letter for Z-58-24-8
H. Jewel Clark
Mon 8/12/2024 3:00 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Jewel Clark, and my home is at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., Phoenix, AZ, 85041. I am
writing in continued opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8. The broker, Mr. John Fox, has still not
worked with us to create a compatible proposal that the community could support.

The first meeting notice from Mr. Fox was sent to neighbors less than the 10 days required by the city.
Our letter was postmarked June 10 for a June 15 meeting. We received it June 14. The location for the
meeting was a pizza parlor where no one could hear the presentation or see the plans. Mr. Fox did not
have adequate answers for neighbor concerns and was uninterested in any changes to his proposal.
Mr. Fox agreed to another meeting but never made any attempt to have one. Mr. Jai Goudeau,
president of the Wyndham Square neighborhood to the north, made a room reservation at Cesar
Chavez Library and called Mr. Fox to see if he would meet after having not heard from him for over a
week after the first meeting. At that meeting, he still did not have answers to address neighbor
concerns, and he had made no changes to his plans. At the first SMVPC meeting, he again had no
interest in trying to work with the neighbors or alter his plans. After the SMVPC voted for a
continuance with the instructions that he should try to work with the neighbors, he made no effort to
contact any of us to arrange to talk. It was only when concerned members of the SMVPC took time out
of their busy schedules to try and help and arranged a meeting the week before August 13, that he
came to the table with no change in his plan except to modify the widths of the lots slightly, so they
weren’t all the same size and to move the storm basin/retention to a slightly different area. At that
meeting, he said he would prepare a new plan with 2 less houses, which we said was still too high, and
to stagger the lots so the property lines wouldn’t line up with each other across the street. This is not
working with the neighbors. This is not meaningful change. No one in the community has seen what
he plans to present at the August 13 meeting. There is no neighbor we know of that supports even
what little we know of this new plan and no one supported the original one.

The density is not compatible with the surrounding developments, plain and simple. The core goals
and vision for the Rio Montana Plan is to preserve rural character, open space, and promote balanced,
high-quality development with higher densities in the northern portion.

The Rio Montana Site Plan Design emphasizes that a new development should consider the larger
context in which a proposed site is located. The parcel in question is sandwiched between low density
R1-10 homes and acre+ lot homes. Mr. Fox has completely disregarded the context of the area he
wants to rezone for a bonus density of at least 18 homes on 4.54 acres when there is no density
around it greater than 3.23 du/ac and the majority is lower.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEasR66Z8dxBteak2wAnRME…
1/3
8/13/24, 9:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Just because Mr. Fox can request more density doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for the area and it
doesn’t mean he should be rewarded with any bonus for not doing the right thing in the first
place: proposing a reasonable plan and working with the neighbors to refine it for everyone’s
benefit. There is no precedent for it in the area for good reason: it is simply incompatible with the
communities already established.

Wording about compatibility and context for surrounding areas in the Rio Montana Plan and the
Phoenix General Plan are there to provide governing bodies like the SMVPC the power and oversight
to curb one-size-fits-all zoning. This situation calls for the use of that power.

Mr. Fox’s plan is so bare bones (at least what was submitted for the staff report and what the
neighbors have seen) that it is nearly impossible to know if he even understands and is incorporating
key design elements from the Site Plan Design and the Single-Family design criteria such as including:

x Deep overhangs and deep porches.

x Planting trees on the east and west of buildings.

x Planting windbreak perimeter trees.

x Using deep green, wide-leafed trees for shade such as the Chinese Pistache.

x Limiting the use of 2-story buildings.

x Creating terminal vistas.

x Allowing for adequate non-straight driveways and side-load/rear-load garages.
££ No more than 40% of driveways should be straight.

x Varieties in roofing materials and facades.

x Changing façade designs, roofing materials and roof ridge orientation at least every third
house.

x Staggered housing setbacks.

x Angled housing orientation on lots.

x Truly varied lot widths of at least 10’ or more.

x Meaningful open space.

Mr. Fox has not addressed neighbor concerns about flood mitigation for both communities to the east
and west nor has he addressed traffic concerns for the Wyndham Square neighborhood to the north
which is the only access to Baseline Rd. and any entrance/exit to the proposed development.

All 52 homes in Wyndham Square have on-lot retention in addition to the storm basins at the
entrance. Mr. Fox has only proposed storm basins, which do not appear to be appreciably bigger than
Wyndham Square’s and no on-lot retention. This property is subject to the same runoff patterns as
Wyndham Square. There is no hydrology report that confirms his planned runoff mitigation is
sufficient and does not pose a danger to either the acre+ lots on the east or Wyndham Square to the
north.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEasR66Z8dxBteak2wAnRME…
2/3
8/13/24, 9:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Since Wyndham Square was built in approx. 2003, traffic on Baseline has increased by nearly 500%.
There is only one in/out and that is onto Baseline. Neighbors report that it is extremely difficult to get
in and out of the neighborhood. An additional 18 or more homes will add 180-200 more car trips per
house per day into this neighborhood, dramatically exacerbating an already difficult situation.

Do we think a density of 3.5 du/ac or approx. 15-16 houses is truly appropriate? No. R1-18 or at least
no more of a density than is present in Wyndham Square, which is 3 du/ac would be appropriate.
Lowering the density to no more than 3.5 du/ac is a compromise. Does any lowering of density help
ameliorate traffic for Wyndham Square? Yes, some. Does lower density help with flood mitigation? Yes,
because there can be more open space allotted for additional retention. Does lower density help
provide room to incorporate the design and site plan elements of the Rio Montana Plan? Yes.

Rio Montana calls out a step density of 2-3.5 on pg. 17. There’s no allowance for more than that. If we
are going to hold developers accountable to design criteria, we should hold them to the other
elements in the Plan as well. Make context a criterion and hold developers accountable when they
don’t do it themselves. I respectfully urge you to help us create a plan that keeps density to no more
than 3.5 du/ac as our compromise and as consistent with the Rio Montana Plan. Help us create a plan
that incorporates the well-considered design and site plan elements the Rio Montana Plan calls for. If
this broker doesn’t want to follow the rules and work with the community, please vote no.

Sincerely,
Jewel Clark

--£
£ H. Jewel Clark
££hjewelclark@fastmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEasR66Z8dxBteak2wAnRME…
3/3
8/13/24, 9:07 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

In regards to the rezoning hearing Z-58-24-8
Joe and Ana Laura Serna
Mon 8/12/2024 1:58 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

I am Joe Serna.
My Wife Ana and I live in Wyndham Square,
at
2018 West Branham Lane£
Phoenix, AZ 85041.

Neither my Neighbors of Wyndham Square,£
nor I,£
have seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans, that would warrant our
support of his development.££
I remain opposed to this development in its current form!
Respectfully,
CDR Joe Serna MD
(Ret) US Public Health Service£

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPo9tNGULvdBlgjDEuB1Ymc…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:11 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
julian galindo
Mon 8/12/2024 11:02 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Hello,£

My name is Julian Galindo and I live at 7808 S. 20th Lane with my wife and (3) kids who are under the
age of 11.£

We have not had any progression towards a resolution for the newly planned development directly
south of Wyndham Square. The developer has not made any concessions per the request of the board
and the community from the July meeting. I remain opposed to the development in its current form.£

Sincerely,£
Julian Galindo
602-413-7791

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACzDK4elGYdKuCB7j7VCHfQ…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:09 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Mike Josic
Mon 8/12/2024 3:07 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Mike Josic and I live at£2020£W. South Mountain Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
There is no reason why this development should not conform to the Rio Montana plan other than
greater financial gain for this broker. This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors
can support.£ I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is
compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area I would support. This plan is not it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£

I respectfully urge you to support the existing neighbors and vote no.
Sincerely,

Mike Josic

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHh6D3SZ9JRIsq3nQhe4ino…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

OPPOSITION to Z-58-24-8
Selena Leon
Mon 8/12/2024 5:18 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Selena Leon and I live at 2009 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85041. The neighbors have not
seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would warrant our support
of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABJJ5qXxAZRCtP%2FRIOc2T…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:09 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
stephanie rubio
Mon 8/12/2024 3:15 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Stephanie Bell, and I live at£ £ £ £ £8020 S 20th Ave Phoenix Az, 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support.£ I remain opposed to
this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the
Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not
it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALz2iU7C6WZCojZpjCXCRB…
1/1
8/13/24, 4:03 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

**Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8**
Candace McDonald-Ramsey
Tue 8/13/2024 4:00 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear Mr. Rogers and Committee Members,

My name is Candace McDonald Ramsey, and I reside at 2012 W. Harwell Rd; Phoenix AZ 85041. I am
writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development under case number Z-58-24-8.

Despite ongoing discussions, it is clear that the developer has not made any significant changes to the
plans that would address the concerns of the community or justify our support for this project. The
current proposal does not adequately consider the impact on our neighborhood, including potential
issues related to traffic, infrastructure, and overall quality of life.

As a resident invested in the well-being and future of our community, I urge you to reject this
development in its current form. We need a plan that truly reflects the needs and interests of the
residents, rather than one that prioritizes external interests at our expense.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,££
Candace McDonald Ramsey£

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANTWwvMhgnZAunuSnhEEln…
1/1
8/28/24, 4:24 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Elizabeth Franco
Tue 8/13/2024 5:58 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Good afternoon,£

I hope this£email finds you well. My name is Elizabeth Hintze Franco and I live at£7820 S 20th Ln,
Phoenix, AZ 85041. The neighbors along£with my family have not seen that the developer has made
any significant changes to the plans that£would warrant£our support of his development. I am
unfortunately£not able to make it to the hearing today, but I am still opposed to this development in
its current form and would like for it to be taken into consideration.£

Kindest regards,£
Elizabeth Hintze Franco£
602-515-8842

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJhB%2BrItbD5JoHXNTUx9t…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:11 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
James Betterment
Tue 8/13/2024 7:49 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is James Betterment and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made changes
to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design
elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPDVeS2CTHhGn5heAyvoziY…
1/1
8/28/24, 4:23 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Joe Hernandez
Tue 8/13/2024 10:17 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers ;Jai Goudeau

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Opposition to Z-58-24-8

My name is Joseph Hernandez and I live at __7706 S 20th DR, PHX, AZ 85041_________________ .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAELh2VWEbGFAmhMWPIFG…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
leticia gonzalez
Tue 8/13/2024 8:41 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is leticia gonzalez and I live at 7723 S 20th Dr.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGMkwK8UTy1CjI3keu%2FX…
1/1
8/13/24, 4:01 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Fwd: Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Joe Hernandez
Tue 8/13/2024 10:24 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers ;Jai Goudeau

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joe Hernandez
Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:17 AM
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8
To: Samuel S Rogers , Jai Goudeau

Opposition to Z-58-24-8

My name is Nadine Hernandez Wife of Joseph and I live at __7706 S 20th DR, PHX, AZ
85041_________________ .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAELh2VWEbGFAmhMWPIFG…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Nicki Sordello
Tue 8/13/2024 8:14 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (14 KB)
Opposition-letter2 _Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_Nicole.Sordello.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Good morning,

My name is Nicole Sordello, and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.

I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made changes to his plans that the
neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the
density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is
not it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible level or include other
meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Nicole Sordello

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJy64yhrG%2BNPr%2FBy6cY…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:11 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Tyler Hintze
Tue 8/13/2024 7:54 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Tyler Hintze and I live at 7820 S 20th Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041.£
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development.£ I remain opposed to this development in it's current
form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFaaSg1ea0ZMpYoXSsf8r5I%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:26 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
leticia gonzalez
Fri 9/6/2024 2:13 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Humberto González and I live at 7723 S 20th Dr.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans
that would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its
current form.£

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPxAAM9tcGtDqGJYQUiDC%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:23 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
leticia gonzalez
Fri 9/6/2024 2:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Mauricio González and I live at£ 7723 S 20th Dr .

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans
that would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its
current form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAP7cfnFa4%2FNKkvf1ZnWeS…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:27 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
CESAR TRUJILLO
Sat 9/7/2024 9:47 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jai Goudeau

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Cesar Trujillo and I live at 7819 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.

I’m opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria, and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons. We welcome development in
our area, but we want development to be compatible with existing character and quality of the
existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix general plan, and the
real Montana plan.

We support a maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the real Montana
criteria to be implemented.

Limiting two-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.

Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau.

Thank you.

If you have questions or one more information, email Jewel Clark at hjewelclark@fastmail.com
or Jai Goudeau at jaigoudeau@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOFEAfY4j5hEltO%2BySRQx…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:40 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Carla Soberanes
Sun 9/8/2024 9:49 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Carla Soberanes£and I live at 7818 S 20th Drive, Phoenix AZ 85041
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana
criteria and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible
with the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo
Montana criteria to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai
Goudeau to the zoning application.

Thank you.

Carla Soberanes

Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADW8rZ7Izk5IlK%2B4Wd5QQ…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

FW: Development update and opposition letter to use
cndymnrotc
Sun 9/8/2024 5:42 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:H. Jewel Clark ;Jai Goudeau

1 attachments (4 MB)
Final-site-plan-from-Fox---20th-and-South-Mountain.jpg;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My contributions to the disapproval of the new proposed development.£ We all agree in our
household that Wyndham Square shouldn't be used as a launch pad for construction traffic and
potential flooding if and when it goes through.£ The South Mountain road is ideal!!!

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

-------- Original message --------
From: "H. Jewel Clark"
Date: 9/7/24 21:58 (GMT-06:00)
To: Jewel Clark , Jai Goudeau
Cc: Adolfo Mauritsia Coronado , Alicia and Carlos
, Alma Tonche , Alyssa Kerns
, Andrew Maifield ,
bobbyscadden@yahoo.com, Butch Box , Candace McDonald-Ramsey
, Carlos Carbajal , Cesar Trujillo
, Christian Griepenstroh , David Key
, Dawn Smith , Dorothy Hernandez
<1dhernan@tempeschools.org>, Drewkgarvin@gmail.com, Eduardo Camacho
, Erika Bowman , Frank Hernandez
, Franko Hernandez , Funyung Mon
, Gabriel Betancourt , Gheine@cox.net,
"H. Jewel Clark" , Irene Navarro ,
ISH326 , James Betterment , Jock
, Joe Hernandez , Joe Serna
, Jose Perea , josphatwatitu@yahoo.com,
Julian Galindo , Justin Intolubbe
, Kagiovan@hotmail.com, Linda Laneback
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHgdefXF1AZGvacBGOOV2C…
1/3
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

, Lisa Cullen , LM
, Lorenzo Gonzales , Lori
, Mark , MaryLou Scadden
, Michael Jordan , Michael Josic
, Michelleandjuliangalindo@gmail.com, Miguel Rubio
, Moe Lathgani , Monica Garcia
, Mustafa Mostofo , Natividad Tapia
, Niki Key , Ravi Sharma
, Roberto Branch , Snigdha Sharma
, Steven Hernandez , Susan Knight
, Virginia Waititu , Alexis Mesquita
, stephrubio23@hotmail.com
Subject: Development update and opposition letter to use

The vote on the development adjoining our neighborhood is coming
up!

Rezoning case Z-58-24-8 will be voted on Tuesday
September 10th at 6 p.m. at the££South Mountain
Community Library, 7050 S. 24th St.
[phoenixpubliclibrary.org]£

We need you to do 2 things:

£Write an opposition email to register your opposition.
Come to the meeting Tuesday, September 10 at 6 p.m. at the South Mountain Library to
show the SMVPC we stand united.

£
Write your own or send the letter below via email to samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov

-----------------------------------------------------
£
Subject line: Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
£
To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Joe and Nadine Hernandez£and I live at 7706 S 20th DR.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHgdefXF1AZGvacBGOOV2C…
2/3
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Lastly, a plan that shows the developers contributions to the environmental and traffic
concerns.£

Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------

If you still have questions or want more information, email Jewel Clark at
hjewelclark@fastmail.com or Jai Goudeau at jaigoudeau@gmail.com.

We have power in numbers! Thank you for your continued efforts and support!

Sincerely,
Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHgdefXF1AZGvacBGOOV2C…
3/3
9/10/24, 12:36 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Dear South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
David Key
Sun 9/8/2024 9:29 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is David Key£and I live at£2006 W Branham Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041 [google.com].£

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and I
am not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

Our community welcomes development in our area, but we want development to be
compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.

Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.

Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.

Thank you.

David M Key Jr

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALiMVOWM8n9MrOqMDTtmH…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:39 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Eduardo Camacho
Sun 9/8/2024 9:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Eduardo Camacho and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria,
and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for pracƟcal reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compaƟble with the
exisƟng character and quality of the exisƟng neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support a maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the Rio
Montana criteria to be implemented.
LimiƟng 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the sƟpulaƟons submiƩed to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai
Goudeau.

Thank you,
Eduardo Camacho

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKP2Zu28wYVKql5y5ihkdw4…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:37 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Lori Coscarelli
Sun 9/8/2024 9:53 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Ernest Coscarelli£and I live at 2008 W Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ.

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank You,
Ernie

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGpG2OZwmjJJp9OuDRdYU…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:37 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Fy M
Sun 9/8/2024 3:46 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

£To the SMVPC,

My name£ is Funyung Mon and I live at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85041.

I oppose Z-58-24-8. It does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were not in favor of
the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons. We welcome development in our area, but we want
development to be compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing
neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio
Montana Plan.

We support:£

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.

Sincerely,£
Funyung Mon, Homeowner at 8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADSVEmK%2FPxdMhrqgkSm…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:40 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Jacques Phelps
Sun 9/8/2024 9:52 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Jacques Phelps Jr£and I live at 7818 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.
Jacques Phelps Jr
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANEjZicSn5ZGrTQRNqzHGc8…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:41 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z58- 24:8
Joe and Ana Laura Serna
Sun 9/8/2024 11:04 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

£
To the SMVPC,
£
I am Joe Serna and live in Wyndham Square, at 2018 West Branham Lane (Phx.AZ).

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8.£
The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were not in favor of the cul-
de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, and to uphold the requirements
for zoning as per the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPa4eulq6%2BdAg3K7vcpwKl…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Marylou Scadden
Sun 9/8/2024 8:13 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is MaryLou Scadden and I live at 7807 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041 .
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were
not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the existing
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix
General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.

Thank you.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHMmRM0WSiZLrYsEdcj1bb…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:38 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Natividad Tapia
Sun 9/8/2024 7:48 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Na vidad Tapia and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria, and we were
not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for prac cal reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compa ble with the exis ng
character and quality of the exis ng neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix
General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support a maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the Rio Montana
criteria to be implemented.
Limi ng 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the s pula ons submi ed to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau.

Thank you,
Na vidad Tapia

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKP2Zu28wYVKql5y5ihkdw4…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:31 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Niki Key
Sun 9/8/2024 9:26 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:David Key

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Dear South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
£
£
My name is Niki Key£and I live at£2006 W Branham Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041.£

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and I
am not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

Our community welcomes development in our area, but we want development to be
compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.
Niki Key

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJIB9hhonn1HlCbB%2FS5PF…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:51 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

opposition to zoning to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Alexis Mesquita
Mon 9/9/2024 5:28 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Alexis Mesquita£and I live at£8020 S 20th Ave.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACyMXSZfzndJicjyFRV3uPc%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:50 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Alicia Sainz
Mon 9/9/2024 4:59 PM
To:hjewelclark@fastmail.com ;Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Alicia Sainz and I live at 8250 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were not
in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the existing
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix
General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.

Thank you.

Alicia Sainz
623 329 3606

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMf2Ps5Vys5Ao1iLu6GVtkY%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:47 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Amelia Goudeau
Mon 9/9/2024 2:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Amelia Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix Az 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and
there has been no consideration for the existing community and the direct inpact on the
neighborhood. I am NOT in favor of, any of the proposed plans by the builder or John Fox.£

~Amelia Goudeau~
£ #602-460-5545

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPfaw%2BhtpNlLp65n2%2BS…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:43 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Ana Laura Serna
Mon 9/9/2024 8:19 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Ana Laura Serna I live at 2018 W Branham Lane at £Wyndham Square. £I am opposed
to the current plan of Z-58-24-8. £The plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria, also not
in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods: uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan. £I believe the tranquility and safety
of my neighborhood will be compromised with the additional traffic going through it. £

We support:

. £A maximum density os 16 houses to allow for more elements of the Rio Montana criteria to be
implemented.
. Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
. Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
Zoning application.£

Regards£

Ana Laura Serna

Sent from my iPad

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANlOn6HrY7VEudneuj3vMvg…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:52 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-
Candace McDonald-Ramsey
Mon 9/9/2024 8:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Candace McDonald-Ramsey and I live at£2012 W Harwell Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.

Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.

Thank you,

Candace McDonald-Ramsey£

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJ154vXeaKBLik6fExwD%2B…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:47 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Carlo
Mon 9/9/2024 1:04 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers ;PDD Long Range Planning

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Carlos Carbajal and I live at 2017 W Harwell Rd, Phoenix AZ, 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.
Carlos

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:58 AM Carlo wrote:
Hello once again,

Just re-affirming my opposition.

My name is Carlos Carbajal and I live at 2017 W. Harwell Rd, Phoenix AZ, 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the
plans that would warrant our support of his development.
I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAExpPVQf2ktBlTAinljB3PM%3D
1/2
9/10/24, 12:47 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Thanks,
Carlos C.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:19 AM Samuel S Rogers wrote:
Good morning,

Thank you for your le er. I will add it to the oﬃcial file and forward it to the applicant and the
members of the South Mountain Village Planning Commi ee.

Thank you,

Samuel Rogers, AICP
Village Planner II*
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Samuel.Rogers@phoenix.gov
602-534-4010

From: Carlo
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 1:58 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning ; Samuel S Rogers

Subject: Opposi on to Z-58-24-8

My name is Carlos Carbajal and I live at 2017 W. Harwell Rd, Phoenix AZ, 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the
plans that would warrant our support of his development.
I remain opposed to this development in its current form.

Thanks,
Carlos

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAExpPVQf2ktBlTAinljB3PM%3D
2/2
9/10/24, 12:49 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Butch Box
Mon 9/9/2024 4:33 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Constance Box and I live at£7719 S 20th Drive.

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.
Thank you
Constance Box

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJngVo99TOBIo6n7gCWrS88…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:48 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
D. Fong
Mon 9/9/2024 2:44 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Mr. Samuel Rogers,

My name is David Fong and I reside at 2004 W. Harwell Rd. in the Wyndham Square neighborhood.

My neighbors and the Community Management representaƟves sƟll have major concerns that the
Broker, Mr. John Fox, has not made any serious or significant changes to the proposed design plans that
would warrant our decision to support this development.

I remain opposed to this development and urge that this applicaƟon not be approved to move forward.

Regards,
David Fong

Virus-free.www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACz7G3iPydlJs3Yerbrm7DE%3D
1/1
9/10/24, 12:49 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Butch Box
Mon 9/9/2024 4:29 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Forrest Box and I live at£7719 S 20th Drive.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.
Thank you.£and I live at 7719 S 20th Drive.£
£
My name is [your name] and I live at [your address].
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAD8XgC1l5KlEtBoEU2ygxk0%…
1/2
9/10/24, 12:49 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

zoning application.

Thank you.

Forrest Box

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAD8XgC1l5KlEtBoEU2ygxk0%…
2/2
9/10/24, 12:46 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Re: Oppose the Zoning Change Filed by John Fox - Case # Z-58-24-8
Fy M
Mon 9/9/2024 12:31 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Good£afternoon Samuel Rogers,

Regarding the opposition to the Case # Z-58-24-8, there is a voting process in tomorrow (9/10)
meeting at South Mountain Community Library.
May I cast the vote through this email to oppose the case because I am still out of town by
then? Or, could I pass the voting right to others?
Your response£is appreciated.£ Thanks.£

Sincerely,£

Funyung Mon,£
Home owner at 8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, 4:54 PM Fy M wrote:
Good morning Samuel Rogers,

Please see attached for the opposition letter.
I, Funyung£Mon, the resident and homeowner at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ
85041. I missed the past two meetings because the meeting notice was mailed out
very£late. When I received the notice, the meeting date was already£past.

Respectfully,
Funyung£Mon,
8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAALQIdTpXuJIiYkKB6uKHaU…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Jai Goudeau
Mon 9/9/2024 10:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jai Goudeau ;H. Jewel Clark

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Jai Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Road Phoenix, 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the Rezoning request as it has been currently filed for approximately 4.5 acres site
located at 700’ feet north and 305’ feet west of the northwest corner of South Mountain Ave and
20th Ave, rezoning case number Z-58-24 to change zoning from S1 to R1-10.
Mr. Fox has not made a genuine effort to work with the community regarding our concerns and I
believe he has not acted in good faith to address the community and involve us in the process.
In the first meeting he arranged at a Barro’s Pizza parlor on a Saturday afternoon in which I
received notice 4 days prior and some did not receive notice at all. There was loud music
playing and very few people could hear his presentation or respond. I requested that we have
another meeting in a more suitable location so I reserved a meeting room at Caesar Chavez
Library on May 28th for June 15th and he said he would send out notices.

At the second meeting on June 15th, John Fox was in attendance with Mike Haer. In the
meeting several attendees addressed their concerns as well as I and Mike Haer said he wanted
to take this information and address his team and he and John Fox agreed to have another
meeting to discuss their findings prior to the hearing.
I contacted John Fox as I saw a survey crew doing measurements on 06/18/24. I asked John if
he was still having another community meeting as he requested or if he was moving forward
with the Village Planning Committee meeting to which he replied that he was not going to have
another neighborhood meeting because he wanted to have a constructive meeting and was
tired of getting beaten up. I reminded him that he and Mike requested that we have another
meeting and he told me that he had not spoken to Mike and that Mike would be out of town
during the Village Planning Committee Meeting.
Mr. Fox repeatedly stated during the meeting that he would not work with us five times before
finally agreeing after continual requests from the Village Planning Committee members. Mr.
Fox would not initially set up the meetings, so he requested that the committee chairman set up
the meetings and mediate the meetings.
We met with Mr. Fox and we tried to have him incorporate elements of the Rio Montana
guidelines to the plans to which he made very few changes. Mr. Fox did not show up to the
Village planning meeting but told the chairman that he wanted a continuance to the next Village
Planning Meeting over the phone.
We set up meetings every week for the next month with Mr. Fox and members of the Village
Planning Committee to work together to come up with a plan to which Mr. Fox would make
some changes, then come up with excuses to change them back at the last minute. At the last
meeting Mr. Fox did not show up and refused to continue working with us.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHXBJBmHgQpOvanywFoFdJ…
1/2
9/10/24, 12:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan. The neighborhood, and not the
Planning Office exclusively, should be involved in crafting beneficial development since we
understand the complexities and needs of our area best.
We feel that because the development can only be entered through our community that it would
be seen as an extension of our development and it should have the same rural feel.
As the plan currently is applied It is not “sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods.” The proposed development is bordered by S-1 established homes on the east
and south (which is currently a horse farm) and R1-10 neighborhoods with densities no higher
than 3.27 DU/AC on the north and east. This development would have a density of 4.4 DU/AC
in the middle of established low-density neighborhoods.
It does not “protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing
lifestyles through new development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance.” This
plan, in its current form, fails the most basic tenets of the above requirements and should not
move forward.
Thank you

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHXBJBmHgQpOvanywFoFdJ…
2/2
9/10/24, 12:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning application Z-58-24-8
H. Jewel Clark
Mon 9/9/2024 10:39 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the Committee Members of the SMVPC,

My name is Jewel Clark, and my address is 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., Phoenix, AZ and I
remain opposed to Z-58-24-8.

Jai Goudeau, HOA president of Wyndham Square to the immediate north of the proposed
development, and I have been involved in multiple meetings with the broker, Mr. Fox, and
members of the SMVPC to try and find some common ground on his proposal. After 2
continuances and multiple meetings, it appeared on Monday that Mr. Fox intends to move
forward with his original 20 house plan and has rejected any changes that would incorporate
the Rio Montana Area plan, get community support, and result in a better development.

I have consistently stressed to Mr. Fox how inappropriate the density proposed is based on my
knowledge of our area and what I’ve been told by neighbors, not only for compatibility to the
surrounding communities on multiple levels, but also in how that density prevents meaningful
inclusion of Rio Montana Area Plan criteria.

The community is united in opposition, albeit on different levels. Some neighbors don't want
any development until a street can punch through to W. South Mountain Ave. but everyone I
have talked to agrees that significantly fewer houses would be better for our community overall
to create a transition density between the established S-1 homes on the east and the low
density R1-10 homes to the north and west and would allow for better traffic relief for
Wyndham Square and again, inclusion of Rio Montana criteria.

In an attempt at reasonable compromise, the conversations I have had with neighbors and have
conveyed at our meetings is that a max of 16 houses is something we could live with in addition
to including other Rio Montana criteria.

While I would prefer a lower number of houses, I can support:
·££££££ Max 16 houses.
·££££££ Limiting 2 story houses to 20% of the total and to the western side of the development.
·££££££ Inclusion of the stipulations proposed by the community submitted to the SMVPC.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAB2uJHQW735Au6rLuZp827s…
1/2
9/10/24, 12:53 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

We have tried to work with Mr. Fox and our requests have been aligned with our village plan,
what our community feels is appropriate, and a sincere desire to see a quality development
built. Mr. Fox’s plan has been exclusively focused on getting as many lots on the property as
possible. He stated more than once that the city said he “could have” 20 lots and it seems he
thinks that's all the approval he needs.£Mr. Fox appears to have only financial justifications for
his rejection of£ Rio Montana criteria and has not listened to the communities impacted by his
application. We are not opposed to development, but we want development to follow our area
plan and provide reasonable compatibility with our existing neighborhoods.

Please add the stipulations proposed by the community to the application or vote no.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041

£

--£
£ H. Jewel Clark
££hjewelclark@fastmail.com

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAB2uJHQW735Au6rLuZp827s…
2/2
9/10/24, 12:41 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Julie Willcox
Mon 9/9/2024 7:37 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Julie Willcox and I live at£9050 S 23rd Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am opposed to the rezoning application Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio
Montana criteria and is opposed by the majority of the surrounding community.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the
Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We would support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you,
Julie

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIWu4K9QfI1JpmKCUTWBpis…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:51 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
stephanie rubio
Mon 9/9/2024 5:23 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Miguel Rubio£and I live at 8020 S. 20th Ave Phoenix AZ, 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAABn46HPTRFJgW5NVNvJO…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:54 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Mike Josic
Mon 9/9/2024 10:58 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Mike Josic£and I live at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and
this criteria must take precedence over one person's£pursuit of profit at the expense£of the
many current residents. The applicant does not and will not live there and would flip the
property to another developer, extract his profit and leave the current residents with a
completely incompatible£development in their£backyards.

I welcome development in our area, but I want development to be compatible with the existing
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the
Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

I support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total exclusively on the west side to
preserve the privacy of the existing acre lots on the east side.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.
Mike Josic

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABqIPaxjBhJLmt4orJv2haQ%3D
1/1
9/10/24, 12:43 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
chevera trillo
Mon 9/9/2024 11:19 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Ntonyt

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

TO: SMVPC
VIA: Samuel Rogers:

Our names are Nick and Chevera Torrez.£
We live at 2311 West Dobbins Road.£

We are writing to state our opposition to the rezoning application Z-58-24-8.£
No different than the last submission, which we also opposed, that was subsequently withdrawn
from the August 13th SMVP meeting, this current plan does not comply with Rio Montana
criteria and is opposed by the majority of the surrounding community.

As has been the recurring voice within the community, we do welcome responsible
development in our area that adheres to the spirit and intent of the Phoenix General Plan and
the Rio Montana Plan. We continue to ask that£SMVPC be respectful of the community's voices
and input and vote no to Z-58-24-8.£
We join the neighbors of this proposed development and support the following:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you for your time and attention,£

Regards,£

Nick & Chevera Torrez
2311 West Dobbins Road
Phx, AZ 85041

***

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANv5fveMKtpIqV0zJMBe410%…
1/2
9/10/24, 12:43 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANv5fveMKtpIqV0zJMBe410%…
2/2
9/10/24, 12:52 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Robert Branch
Mon 9/9/2024 8:21 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Robert and I live at 2012 w harwell rd, Phoenix 85041.£

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you,
RCB

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAE7sd3tbJSVLlkWjtt7nlMo%3D
1/1
9/10/24, 12:50 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
stephanie rubio
Mon 9/9/2024 5:21 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

o the SMVPC,
£
My name is Stephanie BellI live at 8020 S. 20th Ave Phoenix AZ, 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKlCmYEIGxRGkvEdlKV6k6s…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:42 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Andrew Maifield
Tue 9/10/2024 2:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

I Andrew Maifield opposed the zoning.£ Density to high for the area.£ The property should be
left as s1 property.£ S1 property is the sole of South Phoenix and should remain that way.££

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAA%2Bb1u0xO6VAhFjgZz0%…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:46 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Rubio, Arlene
Tue 9/10/2024 4:32 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:mikejosic@gmail.com ;Arlene Rubio

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Arlene Rubio and I live at 8230 S. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85042.

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
x A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
x Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
x Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you,

Arlene Rubio
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient or intended recipient’s authorized agent, the reader is hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIyHvatTm%2BhLsVV12MRQf…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:47 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Ceasar Acedo
Tue 9/10/2024 4:48 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Mike Josic

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Ceasar Acedo and I live at 8230 S. 20thAve Phoenix, AZ 85042.

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
x A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
x Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
x Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you,

Ceasar Acedo

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAE8Jnf2PnylHuWr8gKJ%2FP…
1/1
To the SMVPC,

My name is Ravinder Sharma and I live at 8012 S 20th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria
and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with
the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

x A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana
criteria to be implemented.
x Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
x Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai
Goudeau to the zoning application.

Thank you,

Ravinder Sharma

9/10/24, 1:05 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Lorraine Gloria
Tue 9/10/2024 12:09 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPc,

Our name is Ernie and Lori Gloria and we live at 7813 S. 20th Ln., Phoenix, AZ 85041.
We are both opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio, Montana
criteria, and we are not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the
Phoenix general plan, and the real Montana plan.
We support the maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the real Montana
criteria to be implemented.
Limiting two-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC chair by jewel Clark and Jai Goodeaux.

Thank you

Ernie and Lori Gloria
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFqcTwtT905IpRdcr08Ub6U%…
1/1
9/10/24, 1:08 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Re: Opposition to Z-58-24-8
James Betterment
Tue 9/10/2024 1:04 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is James Betterment and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made
changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in
its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana
Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a
compatible level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:48 AM Samuel S Rogers wrote:
Good morning,

Thank you for your le er. I will add it to the oﬃcial file and forward it to the applicant and the
members of the South Mountain Village Planning Commi ee.

Thank you,

Samuel Rogers, AICP
Village Planner II*
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Samuel.Rogers@phoenix.gov
602-534-4010

From: James Be erment
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:48 AM

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPDVeS2CTHhGn5heAyvoziY…
1/2
9/10/24, 1:08 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

To: Samuel S Rogers
Subject: Opposi on to Z-58-24-8

My name is James Betterment and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made
changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in
its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana
Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a
compatible level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPDVeS2CTHhGn5heAyvoziY…
2/2
9/30/24, 3:45 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Outlook

Re: Presentation for SMVPC meeting, case Z-58-24-8 - Jewel Clark

From H. Jewel Clark
Date Tue 9/10/2024 10:59 AM
To Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (7 MB)
Z-58-24-8 opposition presentation Sept 10 2024.pptx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Okay, updated presentation, as best I could do with things changing so much! Ack!
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Jewel

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 10:19 AM H. Jewel Clark wrote:

Oh my, that's not the information we had yesterday. I will need to update everyone and my
slides. I'll resend ASAP.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:58 AM Samuel S Rogers wrote:
Good morning,

Received, thanks for sending this over. The latest site plan I have looks like it was included as slide
No. 11 in your presentaƟon.

Thank you,

Samuel Rogers, AICP
Village Planner II*
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor [google.com]
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 [google.com]
Samuel.Rogers@phoenix.gov
602-534-4010

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGIvPELEH0xGs6VcXjrRNR0…
1/2
9/30/24, 3:45 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:52 AM
To: Samuel S Rogers
Subject: PresentaƟon for SMVPC meeƟng, case Z-58-24-8 - Jewel Clark

Hi Samuel,

This may be a duplicate. I tried replying with my presentation to our thread and I'm not
seeing my reply in my sent box. Trying again.

This presentation has been prepared based on the information provided yesterday that Mr.
Fox has not submitted any new site plan or made any changes to his original application. If
that information is incorrect, would you please let me know so I can quickly amend my
presentation to reflect those changes? If it is more convenient to call me, my number is
480.664.9436 or if there is a good time to call you today to check in I am happy to do that.
If you have time, I would also really appreciate any heads up if he submits a presentation. I'll
make a records request regardless, just to check, but I can make it earlier if I know when it's
submitted.

I've got supplemental slides on the end that with some blanks in between that I don't plan
to show but are there in case it would help to project an image not readily available in
another presentation should a committee member have specific questions where a slide
would be helpful.

Thank you!
Jewel Clark

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGIvPELEH0xGs6VcXjrRNR0…
2/2
Z-58-24-8
Neighborhood Opposition
SMVPC
Sept. 10, 2024

Latest conceptual site plan/proposal:
• 18 homes on 4.54 acres (reduced from 20 to
accommodate central open space).

• Density not compatible per Rio Montana
Community Vision, Land Use Plan, PHX
General Plan (Certainty & Character).
• Rio Montana criteria still not met- no
justification other than financial and no
sincere efforts to incorporate them.
• Community remains opposed for the above
and other reasons.

Any development that happens should follow
the Rio Montana area plan and have
community support. Neither should be ignored
or be an afterthought.

Certainty & Character

• Green borders represent approved
development since approx. 2021.
• Densities in the surrounding area do
not exceed 3.5 DU/AC for R1-10.
• Approved developments include Rio
Montana criteria.

The community deserves a level of
certainty on what they can rely on in
terms of compatible development and
to have their input listened to.
We have to live with what gets built.

If development is going to happen with this application, let’s make it something
the community can live with that is better quality and aligned with our area plan:

• Limit the density to a more appropriate 16 homes (3.5 du/ac).

• Limit 2-story homes to 20%, aligning with the Rio Montana plan and surrounding
communities.

• Adopt the stipulations (inc. density and housing height) submitted by the
community to address Rio Montana criteria, which will result in a better-quality
development and more community support.

• Otherwise, please vote no.

We want compatible and quality development with Rio Montana criteria and
community support. The applicant’s plan still fails on both counts.

Additional slides for reference.

On-lot retention in
Wyndham Square.

Satellite view of the area
Proposed development in red border.

PlanPHX 2025 Certainty & Character (pg. 90)

New development and expansion or redevelopment of existing development in or near residential
Land use areas should be compatible with existing uses and consistent with adopted plans.

Create new development or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of
Design the surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to
prevent negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles
Design through new development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance.

Promote neighborhood identity through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping and
Design character of the area. Each new development should contribute to the character identified for
the village.
Design Require appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses.

Protect residential areas from concentrations of incompatible land uses that could
Land use
change their character or destabilize land values.

Contextualism matters. Our area plan matters.
City zoning is a one-size fits all across the valley.

Language in the General Plan and the Rio Montana Plan like, “compatible in scale,
design and appearance”, exist to protect communities from inappropriate
development.

Just because someone can apply for something like bonus density doesn’t mean it’s
right for that area.

Developers should not be rewarded when they ignore the community or our area
plan.

9/11/24, 4:49 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Jose Perea
Tue 9/10/2024 7:07 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Jose Angel Perea and I live at 8004 S 20th Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85041.

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.

Thank you.
Jose Angel Perea

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPJD5QxELlNFgFReh6m2XE…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:47 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Zoning case Z-58-24-8
julian galindo
Tue 9/10/2024 5:26 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Julian Galindo£and I live at 7808 S 20th Lane.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by£Jewel£Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Sincerely,£
Julian Galindo
602-413-7791

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACZa9rVbk%2BlCvUrf%2BQ7…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:45 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Kara Moreu
Tue 9/10/2024 3:19 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:ISH326

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Kara Moreu and I live at 7824 S. 20th Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041.£

My husband, Ismael Moreu and I are opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply
with Rio Montana criteria and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical
reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support:

A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.

Thank you.

Kara Moreu

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANIy6dfyoB1CvKrcwkHDShc…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:46 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Rezoning case Z-58-24-8
Lisa Cullen
Tue 9/10/2024 4:07 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To whom it may concern,

£ £ £I am writing to express my concerns with the possibility of the construction in our
neighborhood. We have lived in this neighborhood since 2011 and have loved the quiet,
welcoming and safe area. We have built a community that not only knows each other but is
aware of our surroundings and if anything is out of place. There are many children in this
neighborhood that are able to comfortably play 'anywhere'.£
£ £ £ Knowing that the possibility of construction for up to two years or more and the additional
homes and traffic that will bring is going to be a huge safety issue. We have one entry point into
our subdivision and that entry point has a "calming circle" which means cars will be flying down
20th Lane. The congestion entering and exiting baseline is also a safety hazard that will only get
worse.£
£ £ £I don't see why it's such a hurry to develop in this location with it being such a small space.
What's the benefit to you besides money. I know I can speak on the whole community that we
ask that you see it from our point of view that this is not a good idea. Having an£ additional 20
homes with lots half the size of what's existing doesn't create a positive environment. I urge you
to reconsider until the current property owner sells the other half of the property or allows for
another option for entry into what you're trying to build.£

A concerned neighbor, mother, advocate
/R
Lisa Cullen

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer [mail.onelink.me]

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGvMpyz4WH5Hv%2FOAJgQ…
1/1
Date Sept 9, 2024

To the SMVPC,

My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ
85041.

I am ABSOLUTY 100% opposed to Z-58-24-8.
The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were
not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be
compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing
neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General
Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We could possibly support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the
RIo Montana criteria to be implemented.
Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on
S-1 properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10
property at no more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a
bonus density of 4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at
traditional <=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and
southern neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower
densities towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between
lower and higher density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-
home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood
already suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on
Baseline while also directly across from a commercial shopping center
entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s
Traffic Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a
single-family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will
increase traffic to an already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200
trips per day on average, not including traffic potentially generated
by ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently
being lived on for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will
eventually become an option to alleviate traffic issues is not good
planning.

• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion
potentially impacting safety, property, and health.

Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which
are not compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to
preserve views to South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are
inconsistent with the vast majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-
story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage
entrances or other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana
Plan in their conceptual designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Eliminate 2-story homes, I like others on the south side of our
community picked our lots for the wonderful views to South Mountain
– putting 2-story homes anywhere destroys that completely!!

There is also no information regarding my wall on the south side of my
front yard. What is the plan – I need to understand this specify as my home
is most affected to the design of this possible neighborhood.

If the owner of this undeveloped land has sold to a developer to rezone and build
they are entitled within the appropriate guidelines of the Rio Mountain Plan; but
they need to have their own access to that development – NOT THROUGH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD!! They should have arranged with the seller access off of S
19th Ave or off W South Mountain Ave. This option of our neighborhood should
NOT even be a possibility!!
This development as is would dramatically change the safety of our
neighborhood and my home! Regardless of random drivers not realizing that the
neighborhood has no outlet we have come together to make things as safe as
possible with signs, cameras and communication to help one another in our
neighborhood. I have suffered both a home burglary and a stolen car – I know
these kind of crimes will only increase dramatically for all of us with the proposed
access through our community into another community behind us.
This MUST NOT HAPPEN!!

Thank you,
Lynnette Myers
HOME OWNER SINCE 2005
7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix AZ 85041

9/11/24, 4:48 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Melissa Sunia
Tue 9/10/2024 6:02 PM
To:Melissa Sunia
Cc:Samuel S Rogers ;Michelle Teodoro

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Melissa Sunia and I live at 2022 West Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041.

The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes
to the plans that would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to
this development in its current form.
R,
Melissa Sunia
Sent from my iPhone

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAINm45KMt%2B1GsMbNzLA…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:56 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Nicki Sordello
Tue 9/10/2024 7:48 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers

1 attachments (14 KB)
Opposition-letter2 _Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_Nicole.Sordello 9.10.24.docx;

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

Good morning,

My name is Nicole Sordello, and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.

I am writing again in strong opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made changes
to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development
that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern
our area is welcome. This plan is not it.

The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible level or include
other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.

I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Nicole Sordello

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPA%2FJ56QPphGmm39cKp…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:43 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

OPPOSITION to Z-58-24-8
Selena Leon
Tue 9/10/2024 2:17 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

My name is Selena Leon and I live at 2009 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85041. The neighbors
have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABJJ5qXxAZRCtP%2FRIOc2T…
1/1
9/11/24, 4:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Opposition to Z-58-24-8 From 2009 W. Harwell Road
Jai Goudeau
Tue 9/10/2024 2:58 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

To the SMVPC,

My name is Steven Hernandez, I live at 2009 W Harwell Rd. I am
opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio
Montana criteria and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design
for practical reasons. I would support:
- A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements
of Rio Montana criteria to be implemented.
- Limiting 2 story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
- Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC chair
by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau.
Thank you.

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHZDNF4IVd9MoTF6m8OW0…
1/1
To SMVP,

My name is Susan Knight and I live at 7729 S 20th Ln.

I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and
we are not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons. We welcome
development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the existing
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning ,
the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We support A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the Rio
Montana criteria to be implemented.

Limiting 2-Story homes to no more than 20% of the total.

inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai
Goudeau .

Thank you.

10/3/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook

Outlook

Application Z-58-24-8

From Gregg Holscher
Date Wed 10/2/2024 8:56 PM
To Samuel S Rogers

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

HI Samuel:

I'm writing to you today to express my feelings about the zoning change from 4 to 20 per acre
density, for a new subdivision 710 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Ave & South
Mountain.

I strongly oppose this zoning change!

The developer has not provided any plans for what will be on the site with the new zoning.
Previously, they provided illustrations of homes and the layout of the lots on the property.
The developer should be required to submit the same type of information.

Secondly, this is not compatible with the Wyndham Square subdivision. This will create
substantial traffic through the subdivision. It will worsen egress at 20 Dr and Baseline, the only
way in or out.

This is not an appropriate zoning change for this area. Please reject it.

Gregg Holscher

_______________________________
Gregg Holscher
2021 W Maldonado Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Mobile: 602 903 9600

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKqmw3JQQJhDiixviqntSrU%3D
1/1
ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 10, 2024

ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-58-24-8 (Continued from September 5, 2024)
Location: Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of
20th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
From: S-1
To: R1-10
Acreage: 4.54
Proposal: Single-family residential
Applicant: John Fox
Owner: Dorothy M. Hallock
Representative: John Fox

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations (per the staff memo dated October 7,
2024).

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 7/9/2024 Continuance to August 13, 2024. Vote: 11-3.
South Mountain 8/13/2024 Continuance to September 10, 2024. Vote 12-0.
South Mountain 9/10/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations.
Vote: 7-5.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated October 7, 2024
with a modification.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Matthews proposed a stipulation that would restrict two story homes in the
proposed development to the southern half of the subject site, and asked staff for guidance on
how to phrase that stipulation to be location specific.

Ms. Escolar stated that could be stipulated in a variety of ways. Stipulation No. 19 limits building
height and can be modified to limit where the two-story homes are located.

Motion details: Vice-Chairperson Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-58-24-8, per the staff
memo dated October 7, 2024, with a modification to Stipulation No. 19 to add language that
would state that two-story lots shall be south of lots 5 and 15, as shown on the site plan date
stamped September 5, 2024.

Maker: Vice-Chairperson Busching
Second: Hu
Vote: 7-2 (Gorraiz, Matthews)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the Rio
Montaña Area Plan, and with the character of the surrounding area.

2. The requested R1-10 zoning district is consistent with surrounding zoning and
development patterns in the general area.

3. The proposal will offer additional housing options within the area, contributing to the mix
of housing types in the vicinity, and aiding in alleviating the housing shortage in
Phoenix.

Stipulations:

1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.

3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.

8. 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.

9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.

12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

13. 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.

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. In the event archeological 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 Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

16. Prior to final 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.

17. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 18 UNITS.

18. A MINIMUM OF 30% OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE
COVERED PORCHES IN THE FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD AT A
MINIMUM OF 60 FEET EACH AND AT A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6 FEET, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

19. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR 80% OF THE LOTS SHALL BE
LIMITED TO ONE STORY AND 26 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. TWO-STORY LOTS
SHALL BE SOUTH OF LOTS 5 AND 15, AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN
DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024.

20. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE TWO-STORIES AND 32
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

21. A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE GROSS PROJECT AREA SHALL BE RETAINED
20. AS COMMON AREA, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

22. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN MULTIPLE COLORS, EXTERIOR
21. ACCENT MATERIALS AND TEXTURAL CHANGES THAT EXHIBIT QUALITY
AND DURABILITY SUCH AS BRICK, STONE, COLORED TEXTURED
CONCRETE OR STUCCO, OR OTHER MATERIALS TO PROVIDE A
DECORATIVE AND AESTHETIC TREATMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. ALL STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS LENGTHS SHALL BE LESS THAN
22. 50% OF THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE FAÇADE, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24. FRONT SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE
23. STAGGERED BY A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

25. LOT WIDTHS SHALL VARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
24. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

26. THE SOUTHERN END OF THE STREET SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPING AND
25. WROUGHT IRON VIEW FENCING TO ENHANCE THE VIEW OF SOUTH
MOUNTAIN, UNTIL 20TH LANE IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH OF THE
PROPERTY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

27. A RETAINING WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN
26. BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

28. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
27. SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024, AS MODIFIED BY THE
ABOVE STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.

ATTACHMENT F
300-17-178

300-17-121 300-17-175
300-17-127
300-17-176 30 300-17-055 300-17-079 300-17-080 300-17-082 300-17-047

20TH DR
0-
17 300-17-081
-1
300-17-207 26

300-17-091
300-17-054

300-17-048
300-17-003F

300-17-122 300-17-123 20TH LN 300-17-052 300-17-051 300-17-050
30 0 30
0-
-1 17
7- -1 300-17-053
4 25
12 300-17-049

300-17-674 300-17-673 300-17-672 300-17-671 300-17-670
300-17-669
300-17-004X

IAN DR

300-17-004L
300-17-668

300-17-698 300-17-699 300-17-700 300-17-701
300-17-004W
300-17-667

300-17-004Y
300-17-712
300-17-666

300-17-717

S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-58-24\Z-58-24_Three_Quarter_Vote_Map.aprx
300-17-665

300-17-702
300-17-004V

300-17-704 300-17-703
300-17-705
20TH AVE
300-17-664

300-17-663
DESERT LN

300-17-004M
300-17-004R

300-17-660 300-17-662
300-17-657 300-17-658 300-17-659 300-17-66

300-17-946

300-17-941 300-17-942 300-17-943 300-17-944 300-17-945

300-17-947 300-17-004S
300-17-034

300-17-957 300-17-958 300-17-959
300-17-948 LATONA LN

300-17-004Z
300-17-964 300-17-965
300-17-949

300-17-033

300-17-956 300-17-955 300-17-954
300-17-950
300-17-004U

300-17-951

300-17-952

Legend300-17-953
300-17-930 300-17-929 300-17-928 300-17-927
300-17-004J
300-17-004T

300-17-961
Zoning Petition Area
Proposed Amendment Area
7 -96
0-1
30 Lots/Tracts/Condos SOUTH # of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 11/29 = 37.93%
MOUNTAIN AVE % Area = 3.87 ac./12.64 ac. = 30.62%
Signed Petition
300-17-026K
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED

Petition Verification Map

I 0 100 200 Feet
for Z-58-24-8
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept. 10/17/24
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-58-24-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN
LOCATION (Continued from FILE)
September 5, 2024) opposition x applicant
Approximately 710
feet north and 305
feet west of the
northwest corner of
20th Avenue and
South Mountain
Avenue

APPEALED FROM: PC 10/10/2024 2020 West South Mountain Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 11/13/2024 Jewel Clark, et al.
HEARING 480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Request for 3/4 vote:

Application is opposed for density, traffic, and flood concerns.

RECEIVED BY: Dom Amodio RECEIVED ON: Tuesday,
10/15/2024

Joshua Bednarek Camryn Thompson
Tricia Gomes Daniel Inglese (Attorney)
Racelle Escolar GIS
Sarah Stockham Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Adam Stranieri Village Planner
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
Heather Klotz

REVISED 10/16/2024 VCM

ATTACHMENT G

From: CESAR TRUJILLO
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 12:30 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition letter

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

My name is Cesar Trujillo and I live at 7819 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041. I am opposed to the rezoning case
Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow
adequate room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by
Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood,
who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is
already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to
provide more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not
negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south
of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations
with the following changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses,
which is still more dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to
alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines
such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches
and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will
complement and enhance new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a
comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully, Cesar Trujillo
Sent from my iPhone

From: D. Fong
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 1:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is David Fong and I live at 2004 W. Harwell Rd. I am opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18
homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important
elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact of
these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic
where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after
repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts
for this new development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south of
Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations with the
following changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more
dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the
traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of
side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers
instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance new development and the
surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any
rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
David Fong

From: Dawn Smith
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 9:01 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Michelle Teodoro; Jaigoudeau@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition rezoning Letter case Z-58-24-8

Importance: High

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Dawn Smith and I live at 7816 S 20th Ln Phoenix Az 85041. I am opposed to the
rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development
and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The
traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact of these additional homes
on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic were
entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr.
Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how his
current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the
surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain
area south of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of
the current stipulations with the following changes: a site p lan retaining the current open space but a
maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more dense than the surrounding homes, but more
compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham
Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of side-
load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all
homes, pavers instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and
enhance new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive
flood assessment and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully, Dawn Smith

From: Fy M
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:38 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Oppose rezoning case Z-58-24-8.

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Funyung Mon and I live at 8115 S 21 st Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-
8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow adequate room to
incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not
represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the sole
burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous.
In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how his current
flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south of
Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations with the
following changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more
dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the
traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of
side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers
instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance new development and the
surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any
rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,

Funyung Mon

From: Mike Josic
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 2:07 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning case Z-58-24-8.
Attachments: Opposition letter Z-58-24-8 October 2024.docx

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Mike Josic and I live at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am
opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with
surrounding development and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important
elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not
represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood,
who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the
neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after
repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how his current
flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the
surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South
Mountain area south of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support
the majority of the current stipulations with the following changes: a site plan retaining the
current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more dense than the
surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some
of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design
guidelines such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat
mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers instead of concrete
and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance new development
and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood assessment
and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
Mike Josic
From: Niki Key
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 8:07 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Dear Phoenix Planning Commission,

Our names are David and Niki Key and we live at 2006 W Branham Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041. We purchased our home in the Wyndham Square Community
to become part of a small community with one way in and one way out. We
purchased a home within our means that was safe to raise our children in.
We checked the area and specifically the neighborhood that existed just to
the south of us and saw that at some point it may cut through our
neighborhood. The way it is zoned now we would not have the number of
people coming and going through our community as Mr. Fox is proposing. We
never even considered that someone could go in and rezone that property
for multiple homes. We have lived in Phoenix our entire lives and feel
someone like Mr. Fox who has no vested interest in Phoenix as his
community doesn't really care about us and how much money each of us has
invested in our properties. He's a developer coming from Scottsdale
changing our community and moving on to the next investment property
without considering the problems he's leaving behind. At several of these
public meetings we have attended, Mr. Fox has referred the people that
live in our community as "those people". He has been very rude and not
kind to us. We work hard for what we have and we don't think Mr. Fox has
respect for any of us. Please consider the 50 plus families that are
being inconvenienced when the person selling the property could easily
just grant Mr. Fox an easement to South Mountain Ave. Then the plan would
not have to cut through our development. One person could be
inconvenienced rather than 50+ households. Unfortunately, due to previous
commitments we are unable to attend tomorrow's meeting, but wanted to
ensure you have our opinion on the matter.

We are opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is
not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow adequate
room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The
traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact
of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will
bear the sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the
neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous. In addition,
Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide
more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts for this new
development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities
in the South Mountain area south of Baseline as indicated in the Rio
Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current
stipulations with the following changes: a site plan retaining the current
open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more dense
than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which
will help to alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square,
incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set
percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat
mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers instead
of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and
enhance new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request
a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any
rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
David and Niki Key

From: Jai Goudeau
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 7:40 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

My name is Jai Goudeau, and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85041. My home is located
directly against the northern edge of the proposed development, just east of 20th Lane. I am writing to
express my opposition to the rezoning case for the following reasons:
1. Impact on Neighborhood Traffic and Access: The development is being planned without adequate
consideration for the current 20-year-old neighborhood that will be significantly impacted. Specifically,
the developer has not explored using an access easement through the property owner's remaining 5
acres, which could serve as access to the development. Instead, the proposal uses the Wyndham
Square Neighborhood as the sole access point. This will impose a heavy burden on our community, as
there is currently only one ingress/egress road into and out of the neighborhood.
This road is adjacent to a major commercial shopping center driveway, which already experiences high
levels of consumer traffic. The businesses in this area include Starbucks, Lowe's, Goodwill, Wells Fargo
Bank, UPS, Burger King, CVS, and others. Adding additional traffic from construction and the eventual
new homes is not only unfair but also unsafe. The community would bear the brunt of this increased
traffic, while the property owner stands to profit without addressing the long-term consequences.
2. Lack of Comprehensive Traffic Study: There has not been a thorough traffic study conducted that
accurately reflects the traffic conditions and issues. The developer submitted a traffic statement that
does not capture the reality of the impact on our streets. A full traffic study is essential before any
decisions are made, as the current analysis fails to represent the true extent of the problem.
3. Incompatible Density with Surrounding Areas: The proposed development is not "sensitive to the
scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods." It is bordered by S-1 zoned homes to the east
and south (with the southern property currently functioning as a horse farm) and R1- 10 neighborhoods to
the north and west, which have a maximum density of 3.27 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). In contrast,
the proposed development would have a density of 4.1 DU/AC, which is incompatible with the
established low-density neighborhoods surrounding it. This increase in density is not appropriate and
disrupts the character of our community.
4. Flooding Concerns: There is a history of flooding in the area, including the property in question and
the surrounding homes. The elevation differences cause water to permeate the soil and flood the yards
of houses on the northern end of the proposed development. While it was initially suggested that a
retention barrier be buried between the development and the existing homes to address this issue, the
current stipulations incorrectly describe this as a retaining wall. This error needs to be clarified, and the
appropriate flood prevention measures should be included in the plan.
5. Developer’s Misrepresentation of Previous Developments: The developer has claimed that they are
being treated unfairly by having to incorporate the Rio Montana plan and argued that other developments
did not follow the same guidelines. However, the developments used as examples were zoned at higher
densities (R-6) and did not face the same access limitations as Wyndham Square. The comparison is
misleading, and the developer should not be exempt from meeting the appropriate standards for this
specific area.
6. Preservation of Neighborhood Character: This development, as currently proposed, fails to "protect
and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new
development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance." The proposed density and access
plans do not meet these basic requirements and will degrade the quality of life in our community. The
plan should not proceed in its current form.

Conclusion: For the reasons outlined above, I urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to reject the
proposed rezoning or, at the very least, require the developer to address these significant concerns
before moving forward. A more thoughtful, balanced approach that prioritizes the well-being of the
current residents is essential.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jai Goudeau
2013 W. Harwell Road
Phoenix, AZ 85041

From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 8:25 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to case Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Planning Commission,

My name is Jewel Clark and our house is at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., Phx, AZ 85041. We are just half a lot south of
the proposed development on the east side. I am opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-8 that you will hear on Oct. 10,
2024.

While I am very, very grateful for the hard work of the SMVPC, esp. the members who volunteered their time trying to
help facilitate, as neutral parties, negotiations with Mr. Fox, and for the additional stipulations the SMVPC put into the
application which are beneficial improvements, l remain opposed to Mr. Fox's plan for multiple reasons.

Compatibility
The density of the proposed plan is simply incompatible with the surrounding communities, half of which are S-1 with
established homes on acre+ lots, which are not getting redeveloped into anything denser, and low density R1-10 (3.23
and 2.98) to the north and west that have been there over 20 years. The Phoenix General Plan and the Rio Montana
Area Plan, which this area governs, both state that new development should be sensitive to the existing neighborhoods
and preserve "certainty & character." The city codes for design review speak to contextualism to the surrounding
environment. This development is more dense than any surrounding R1-10 single family communities in the area, even
those that have been recently approved within the last few years and there is still active agriculture and S-1 established
homes throughout, indicating that a lower density development is still appropriate.

Flooding
There are unknown flood mitigation issues for residents on all sides. The area is prone to flooding due to runoff from
South Mountain Park. The residents of Wyndham Square experience street flooding from the runoff that doesn't get
absorbed by the land currently being proposed for development. Every lot in Wyndham Square was designed with on- lot
retention. Each lot is approximately 10,000 sq ft or more and the homes take up approx. 40% of the lot as designed
which allows for additional open land to absorb rain. The S-1 properties have enough open space to absorb most of the
runoff which comes down 19th Ave and banks to the northwest across our properties and the proposed development
parcel behind us but if there were block walls with houses there, we don't k now what would happen to our properties or
those new homes Mr. Fox's proposal would have 50 to 60% of each lot filled with the house footprint and no on-lot
retention. He has proposed 3 retention basins calculated, he says, to whatever the city says he should do, but this area
has historically been affected by under spec'd flood plans and despite numerous requests to see his data or talk to his
engineer, the neighborhood has received no assurance that a development won't make issues worse. A comprehensive
flood study should be performed to ensure the current mitigation plans for this development are sufficient.

Traffic
Traffic is an issue that most impacts the Wyndham Square neighborhood to the north. Their 52-home community, built
in 2003, is the only in/out onto Baseline Rd. for this proposed development. Their entrance is just west of the busy
intersection of 19th Ave. and Baseline and directly across from one of the entrances to a large shopping center,
including a Starbucks which uses that access point in particular. The residents already report extreme difficulty entering
and exiting their neighborhood and the addition of 18 houses, generating an ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) estimate
of approx. 10 trips per day per home will dramatically exacerbate the problem. The traffic statement Mr. Fox submitted
only accounted for 1 hour of peak time for morning and night using publicly "Google-able" ITE data for attached family
housing. This far under-represents the actual traffic impact. A comprehensive traffic study should be conducted.

While the planning department has reserved an easement on the south end for a punch through to W. South Mountain
Ave. when the southern property of approx. 5 acres sells this punch through is only enforceable if the property sells to
be developed. There is no guarantee that anyone who buys that property will actually develop it. It is currently a
working horse farm and the current owner, who is our neighbor and a good friend, has no current plans to leave and the
property is well-positioned to sell to someone who would continue to use it for raising horses. This leaves the residents
of Wyndham Square indefinitely burdened with an already untenable traffic problem.

It seems premature to develop this parcel but if development has to happen now, lowering the density to no more than
16 houses to reduce the traffic impact and create more open space, along with the stipulations approved by the SMVPC,
would be more bearable. Would I be thrilled? No. Would anyone in the neighborhood be thrilled? Probably not. A
maximum of 10 houses (R1-18) would be more in keeping with a transitional density between S-1 and R1-10, but at least
16 houses is in keeping with other recently approved R1-10 and so maintains a standard for the area. It would also allow
for more Rio Montana design elements to be implemented.

I would personally also like to see additional heat mitigation like pavers instead of concrete and deep overhangs and
porches on all east/west facades along with more robust construction like under-roof insulation, blown-in insulation and
a higher R factor requirement all around. Climate change is here and it's too late to stop it. We might as well build to
make our homes as tolerable as possible.

This community cares about what gets built here. My husband and I have owned our property since 2009, and since
2018, we have been involved in numerous negotiations with developers who wanted to build in our area. Mr. Fox's
application is the thinnest, least developed of any application I have seen so far. This community wants to be involved
and see a holistic plan we can support. We are uniquely positioned to advise on what should go into the neighborhood
based on our experience and genuine desire to create positive impact for the area rather than what can go into the
neighborhood as long as the broker checks all the right boxes. This plan still needs work and it needs community
support. It is not ready to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480.664.9436

--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com

From: LM
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:26 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Jai Goudeau; Michelle Teodoro
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8 - October 2024
Attachments: Opposition letter Z58248_LM_Oct 9, 2024.pdf; Opposition letter Z58248_LM_Sept 9,
2024.pdf; Opposition letter Z58248_LM July 2024.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Please see the attached letters
I AM STILL 100% OPPED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT
NO REAL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PROPERLY GIVEN TO US THE HOME OWNERS &
OUT ENTIRE COMMUNITY HAS ONLY BEEN TREATED AS AN AFTER THOUGHT

L Myers
7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041

Date Oct 9, 2024

To the SMVPC,

My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ
85041.

I am ABSOLUTY 100% opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-8.

The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development
and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important elements of
the Rio Montana plan.
The traffic statement alone submitted by Mr. Fox does not represent the
true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square
neighborhood, which will in facet bear the sole burden of increased traffic.
My home that sits at the end of our neighborhood in cul-de-sac on 20th
Lane, I am drastically affected by all of this.

Entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely
hazardous. There are accidents at the entrance area to our neighborhood
regularly.

Additionally after repeated requests, Mr. Fox has never fulfilled his promise
to provide more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts for
this new development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We could possibly support:
A maximum density of 16 single story houses, to allow for more
elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be implemented.

Even at 16 house it is still more dense than the surrounding homes, but
more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the
traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana
design guidelines such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry
garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep
overhangs on all homes, pavers instead of concrete and other beneficial
design elements that will complement and enhance new development and
the surrounding neighborhoods.

We also request a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study
before any rezoning/development is approved.

Plus there is still no tangible information regarding my wall on the south
side of my front yard. What is the plan – I need to understand this specify
as my home is most affected to the design of this possible neighborhood.

This development as is would dramatically change the safety of our
neighborhood and my home! Regardless of random drivers not realizing that the
neighborhood has no outlet we have come together to make things as safe as
possible with signs, cameras and communication to help one another in our
neighborhood. I have suffered both a home burglary and a stolen car – I know
these kind of crimes will only increase dramatically for all of us with the proposed
access through our community into another community behind us.

This MUST NOT HAPPEN!!

Respectfully,

Thank you,
Lynnette Myers
HOME OWNER SINCE 2005
7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix AZ 85041

Date Sept 9, 2024

To the SMVPC,

My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ
85041.

I am ABSOLUTY 100% opposed to Z-58-24-8.
The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were
not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.

We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be
compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing
neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General
Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.

We could possibly support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the
RIo Montana criteria to be implemented.
Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on
S-1 properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10
property at no more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a
bonus density of 4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at
traditional <=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and
southern neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower
densities towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between
lower and higher density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-
home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood
already suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on
Baseline while also directly across from a commercial shopping center
entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s
Traffic Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a
single-family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will
increase traffic to an already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200
trips per day on average, not including traffic potentially generated
by ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently
being lived on for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will
eventually become an option to alleviate traffic issues is not good
planning.

• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion
potentially impacting safety, property, and health.

Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which
are not compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to
preserve views to South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are
inconsistent with the vast majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-
story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage
entrances or other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana
Plan in their conceptual designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Eliminate 2-story homes, I like others on the south side of our
community picked our lots for the wonderful views to South Mountain
– putting 2-story homes anywhere destroys that completely!!

There is also no information regarding my wall on the south side of my
front yard. What is the plan – I need to understand this specify as my home
is most affected to the design of this possible neighborhood.

If the owner of this undeveloped land has sold to a developer to rezone and build
they are entitled within the appropriate guidelines of the Rio Mountain Plan; but
they need to have their own access to that development – NOT THROUGH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD!! They should have arranged with the seller access off of S
19th Ave or off W South Mountain Ave. This option of our neighborhood should
NOT even be a possibility!!
This development as is would dramatically change the safety of our
neighborhood and my home! Regardless of random drivers not realizing that the
neighborhood has no outlet we have come together to make things as safe as
possible with signs, cameras and communication to help one another in our
neighborhood. I have suffered both a home burglary and a stolen car – I know
these kind of crimes will only increase dramatically for all of us with the proposed
access through our community into another community behind us.
This MUST NOT HAPPEN!!

Thank you,
Lynnette Myers
HOME OWNER SINCE 2005
7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix AZ 85041

July 2024
My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S. 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041-7716 I
am writing in stern opposition to the application for development and rezoning case
number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of
currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am absolutely opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.

Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on
S-1 properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10
property at no more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a
bonus density of 4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at
traditional <=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and
southern neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower
densities towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between
lower and higher density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
• Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses
per acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate
accommodations for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still
further the city’s housing goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding
communities as outlined below.

Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-
home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood
already suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on
Baseline while also directly across from a commercial shopping center
entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s
Traffic Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a
single-family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will
increase traffic to an already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips
per day on average, not including traffic potentially generated by
ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently
being lived on for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will
eventually become an option to alleviate traffic issues is not good
planning.
• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion
potentially impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions

• R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
• Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals
for rezoning/development.

Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which
are not compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to
preserve views to South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are
inconsistent with the vast majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-
story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage
entrances or other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana
Plan in their conceptual designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.

Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
• The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply
with the current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60%
housing footprint on each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that
will be exacerbated from that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
• Require lower density zoning and more open space.
• Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
• Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
• Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation
and heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the
city’s 2021 Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to
curb climate change.
• Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help
keep the sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
• Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west
facing based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.

Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any
of the neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in
person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding
property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.

At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to
attend. He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see

what he could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but
no such meeting has been called.

He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His
development plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding
neighbors. This application should not in anyway move forward.

ADDITIONAL PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES & CONCERNS

I absolutely have major concern about this matter since my home will be
impacted the most!!!
The existing pasture that is undeveloped land to the south of our subdivision has been
this way since prior to our subdivision was build back in 2003. This pasture was
absolutely influential in my dissension and others to purchase in Wydham Sq in the first
place. We were all looking for a small quite neighborhood where we could live and
actually know our neighbors. My choice in which lot I purchased was 100% influenced
by the undeveloped land and all the good that comes from that and the views that I
enjoy daily to the south mountains.
If the owner of this undeveloped land has sold to a developer to rezone and build they
are entitled within the appropriate guidelines of the Rio Mountain Plan; but they need to
have their own access to that development – NOT THROUGH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD!! They should have arranged with the seller access off of S 19th Ave
or off W South Mountain Ave. This option of our neighborhood should NOT even be a
possibility!!
This development as is would dramatically change the safety of our neighborhood and
my home! Regardless of random drivers not realizing that the neighborhood has no
outlet we have come together to make things as safe as possible with signs, cameras
and communication to help one another in our neighborhood. I have suffered both a
home burglary and a stolen car – I know these kind of crimes will only increase
dramatically for all of us with the proposed access through our community into another
community behind us.
This MUST NOT HAPPEN!!
I have always pushed for our community to become a gated community and I thing that
matter needs to be on the table again regardless of the rezoning and proposed
development to the south of us. IF somehow this matter moves forward despite our
entire neighborhood that are 100% opposed then I believe it should become mandatory
that our community have entrance gates installed to help keep us all safe!!

Respectfully,
Lynnette Myers
7828 S. 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041-7716

From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Regarding Agenda item #6, Z-58-24-8

From: Mark Beehler
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:54 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Regarding Agenda item #6, Z-58-24-8

Dear Members of the City of Phoenix Planning Commission,

I'd like to comment on Zoning Case Z-58-24-8 which appears as Agenda Item #6 in your upcoming meeting.

I am a member of the South Mountain Village Planning Committee and wanted to present the dissenting opinion of the
SMVPC's narrow 7-5 approval of this case.

My first point concerns how the process seems to be interpreted in the SMVPC. This case faced considerable public
opposition and we asked that the public meet with the developer to see if they could resolve their issues. They were
unable to do so and the local homeowners reported that they felt the developer was not cooperative in their
meetings. At our hearing we received 100% opposition to the approval of the case. Unfortunately it seems that my
committee feels that when the public enters into negotiation with a developer they have informally agreed to binding
arbitration and a negotiated compromise must be reached. Thus the SMVPC tends to approve the zoning because both
parties participated in discussion even if no satisfaction was found. The public remained 100% in opposition and the end
of our vote. This should not be the case and the public should not be penalized for participating in the prescribed
process.

My second point is that this case represents bad development of a landlocked parcel with all of the benefit accruing to
the landowner and all of the burden falling on the neighborhood and the city. Because this landowner is electing to only
develop the back half of the approximately 10 acre parcel, they are unable to provide for the completion of S. 20th Lane
connecting it to South Mountain Blvd. This connection is crucial to the traffic relief that the development of this land
requires. In addition to the daily traffic caused by 18 new homes being added to the one entrance/egress onto Baseline
Road once the development is complete, there will be a complete nightmare of traffic jams within the existing
community caused by construction equipment unable to safely access the site and navigate the narrow entrance. It is
unfair for the city to require the existing homeowners to accept this harm when there is no future benefit for them to be
derived.

This 10 acre parcel should be developed as one whole when the traffic issue can be addressed, the development cost
spread out over a larger number of home improving affordability, and a more cohesive design can be achieved. This site
could be a great connector that brings this neighborhood together.

Please consider denying this zoning case so that a better fit can be found for the community in the future.

Respectfully,
Mark Beehler
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
842 E Buist Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8

From: Butch Box
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 6:22 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is ____________ and I live at ________________. I am opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24- 8. The density at
18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important
elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact of
these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic
where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after
repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts
for this new development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south of
Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations with the
following changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more
dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the
traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of
side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers
instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance new development and the
surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any
rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
.
ZjQcmQRYFp fptBa nnerS

From: Candace McDonald-Ramsey
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 4:24 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: (Opposition to Z-58-24-8)

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Candace McDonald-Ramsey and I live at 2012 w. Harwell rd Phoenix,AZ. I am
opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with
surrounding development and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important
elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not
represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood,
who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the
neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after
repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how his
current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the
surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South
Mountain area south of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We
support the majority of the current stipulations with the following changes: a site plan
retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more
dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help
to alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio
Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and
additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers
instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance
new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood
assessment and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
Candace

From: ISH326
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 3:10 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Ismael Moreu and I live at 7824 S 20th Lane, Phoenix Az 85041. I am opposed to the
rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding
development and does not allow adequate room to incorporate important elements of the Rio
Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact of
these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the sole burden of
increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely
hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide
more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would
not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

Having lived in our home for 18 years I can attest to the fact that the impact on the traffic and
safety of the current and potential future residents is not being taken into consideration by the
current zoning plan. The plan by not providing another viable means of entry/exit into the
subdivision puts undue risk and burden on the current community (including those outside our
subdivision). To overlook this would be a detriment to the future viability of the entire
subdivision. The addition traffic and congestion that would be added to Baseline Road needs
additional consideration before any plans are approved.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South
Mountain area south of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the
majority of the current stipulations wit the following changes: a site plan retaining the current
open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more dense than the surrounding
homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the traffic
burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set
percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and
deep overhangs on all homes, pavers instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements
that will complement and enhance new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We

also request a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any
rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
Ismael Moreu

From: als3363@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 3:59 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Zoning Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

We are not opposed to the development of South Phoenix as we have lived here for most of our lives. At
Wyndham Square we have found a great neighborhood and hoped to continue living in this peaceful and
friendly community. We now feel this is threatened with the Z-58-24-8 project.
The sole burden of increased traffic will be on Wyndham Square increasing the already hazardous traffic trying
to enter and exit on Baseline. We could be on board with the development if it had its own access on 19th Ave
or South Mountain Ave.
We also request a comprehensive flood and traffic assessment before any rezoning development plans are
approved.
Respectfully
Joe and Ana Serna
Sent from my iPhone

From: Melissa Sunia
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 1:43 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Michelle Teodoro
Subject: Opposed - case Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Melissa Sunia and I live at 2022 West Branham Lane. I am opposed to the rezoning case Z-58-
24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow adequate
room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox
does not represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will
bear the sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already
extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more
information on how his current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the
surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south
of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations
with the following changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses,
which is still more dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to
alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines
such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches
and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will
complement and enhance new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a
comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
John & Melissa Sunia
Sent from my iPhone

From: julian galindo
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 3:15 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission, My name is Julian Galindo and I live at 7808 S. 20th Lane. I am opposed to the
rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow
adequate room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox
does not represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the
sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely
hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how
his current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes. We
support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south of Baseline
as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations with the following
changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more dense
than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to alleviate some of the traffic
burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of side-
load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers
instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance new development and the
surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any
rezoning/development is approved. Respectfully,

Julian Galindo
Principal Civil Engineer
602-413-7791

From: Kara Moreu
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 2:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Kara Moreu and I live at 7824 S 20th Lane, Phoenix Az 85041. I am opposed to the rezoning case
Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow
adequate room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by
Mr. Fox does not represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood,
who will bear the sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is
already extremely hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to
provide more information on how his current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not
negatively impact the surrounding homes.

The impact of the traffic congestion on Baseline as designed is a burden that is too grave to overlook. Most
family in the subdivision including ours have been involved in accidents along Baseline as it is one of the most
dangerous roads in Phoenix. The current plan will add hundreds more opportunities for incidents daily. This will
have a trickle down effect as civil departments have to deal with these situations. It is in the best interest of the
community and the potential homeowners to look out for their best interest and ensure their safety by opposing
rezoning case Z-58-24-8.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South Mountain area south
of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We support the majority of the current stipulations
with the following changes: a site plan retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses,
which is still more dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help to
alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio Montana design guidelines
such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and additional heat mitigation such as porches
and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will
complement and enhance new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a
comprehensive flood assessment and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,
Kara Moreu

From: M. Garcia
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 12:19 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to new project behind Wyndam Square

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

Good afternoon,
I would like to have the committee note my opposition to the project being built behind the Wyndham Square
community. This project will cause a traffic issue as well as overload the existing narrow roads in the community.

I have attended meetings and all governmental entities are not being mindful of a traffic study. The baseline is extremely
congested, and the roads can not handle the current housing being built in the same area. The city should be concerned
about how the constituents will get to work and community events if it permits more homes than roads to support the
growth.

The developer is not acting in good faith in communication, but that is being ignored. Additionally, the homes are not
affordable so an alternative roadway should be considered. Density is another issue that is being ignored. The planning
communities are not being consistent with their prior density rulings.

With all of this strongly oppose the project

Monica Garcia
Lot 9 Wyndham

From: Selena Leon
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:02 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: OPPOSITION to Z-25-24-8

CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.

Report Suspicious

To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

My name is Selena Leon and I live at 2009 W Harwell Rd, Phoenix AZ 85041. I am opposed to the
rezoning case Z-58-24-8. The density at 18 homes is not compatible with surrounding development and does not allow
adequate room to incorporate important elements of the Rio Montana plan. The traffic statement submitted by Mr. Fox
does not represent the true impact of these additional homes on the Wyndham Square neighborhood, who will bear the
sole burden of increased traffic where entering and exiting the neighborhood onto Baseline is already extremely
hazardous. In addition, Mr. Fox, after repeated requests, never fulfilled his promise to provide more information on how
his current flood mitigation efforts for this new development would not negatively impact the surrounding homes.

We support compatible development with existing lower density communities in the South
Mountain area south of Baseline as indicated in the Rio Montana plan guidelines. We
support the majority of the current stipulations with the following changes: a site plan
retaining the current open space but a maximum density of 16 houses, which is still more
dense than the surrounding homes, but more compatible with our area and which will help
to alleviate some of the traffic burden for Wyndham Square, incorporation of more Rio
Montana design guidelines such as a set percentage of side-load/angled entry garages, and
additional heat mitigation such as porches and deep overhangs on all homes, pavers
instead of concrete and other beneficial design elements that will complement and enhance
new development and the surrounding neighborhoods. We also request a comprehensive flood
assessment and traffic study before any rezoning/development is approved.

Respectfully,

Selena M Leon

Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing -
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Accessory Dwelling Units - Z-TA-2-24-Y
(Ordinance G-7317) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-2-24-Y and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
new definitions and revise existing definitions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and
related residential terms; amend Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District-Ranch
or Farm Residence) and Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District-Ranch or Farm
Commercial) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43
District-One-Family Residence), Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District-One-
Family Residence), and Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District-One-Family
Residence) to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot coverage; amend
Section 608 (Residential Districts) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 609 (RE-35
Single-Family Residence District) to increase permitted lot coverage; amend Chapter
7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 703.B
(Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Development) to differentiate the
addition of ADUs from multi-family developments; and amend Section 706 (Accessory
Uses and Structures) to clarify wordings and comply with HB 2720.

Summary
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) revision of existing City of Phoenix ADU regulations to comply with HB
2720, and 3) revision of lot coverage permissions for certain districts in order to comply
with HB 2720 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-2-24-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, for
information only.
PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on November 7,

2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.

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);
CHAPTER 6, SECTION 603 (SUBURBAN S-1 DISTRICT—RANCH
OR FARM RESIDENCE), SECTION 604 (SUBURBAN S-2
DISTRICT—RANCH OR FARM COMMERCIAL), SECTION 605
(RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RE-43 DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE), SECTION 606 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RE-24
DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE), SECTION 607
(RESIDENTIAL R1-14 DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE),
SECTION 608 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), SECTION 609 (RE-35
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT); CHAPTER 7, SECTION
701.A.3 (PROJECTIONS), SECTION 703.B (LANDSCAPING AND
OPEN AREAS IN MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT), AND
SECTION 706 (ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES), TO
MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to add new

definitions and revise existing as follows:

***

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section, subordinate to
the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same lot and used for a residential

1 Ordinance G

accessory use. ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross
density.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
HAVING A COMMON WALL AND ATTACHED FOUNDATIONS WITH THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT. AN ADU CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IN ANY
OTHER MANNER SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACHED ADU.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, DETACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT AS MAY BE
EXPLICITLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. A DETACHED ADU
MAY INCLUDE AN INTEGRATED GARAGE, CARPORT, OR PORCH. TWO ADUS
ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER, BUT NOT TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SHALL
EACH BE CONSIDERED AS A DETACHED ADU.

***

Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more dwelling units are
provided, not including a permitted accessory dwelling unitS.

***

SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or

Farm Residence), is amended to read as follows:

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS, and

c. For each additional 10 acres provided above the minimum lot size,
one additional accessory dwelling unit for use by on-site laborers may
be provided.

d. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, ONE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT (ADU) MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY WHEN AT
LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

2 Ordinance G

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than one acre.

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***

SECTION 3: That Chapter 6, Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or

Farm Commercial), is amended to read as follows:

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than three acres.

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

3 Ordinance G

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***

SECTION 4: That Chapter 6, Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—

One-Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-43 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-43, One-Family Residence DISTRICT, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a
minimum area of 43,560 square feet, and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.

4 Ordinance G

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 605.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 605.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 605.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 605.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 605.C.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.

5 Ordinance G

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 43,560 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than 165 feet, nor to have a lot depth of less than
175 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established [front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established] by a line joining the nearest front corner of the
main building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on
the other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more
than fifty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than forty feet in
depth. On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an
established front yard, the front yard shall be not less than forty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follow an approved plot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than forty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards each having a width of thirty feet.

6 Ordinance G

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than forty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 165 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 175 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 40 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 20 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
Section 701.a.3.a (1)(b), are not permitted.

***

7 Ordinance G

SECTION 5: That Chapter 6, Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—

One-Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-24 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-24, One Family Residence District, is a district of single-family homes designed to
maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a minimum area of
24,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 606.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

8 Ordinance G

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 606.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 606.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 606.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 606.A.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

9 Ordinance G

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 24,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 24,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established by a line joining the nearest front corner of the main
building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on the
other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more than
forty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than feet thirty in depth.
On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an established front
yard, the front yard shall be not less than thirty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follows an approved lot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than thirty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards which shall have the following minimum
widths:

a. Fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot.

b. Ten feet on an interior side yard.

10 Ordinance G

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than thirty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley or from what would be the centerline of a full sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 24,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 130 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***

11 Ordinance G

SECTION 6: That Chapter 6, Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-

Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned R1-14 prior to September 13,
1981.

The R1-14, One-Family Resident RESIDENCE District, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect, and preserve a character of development on lots with
minimum area of 14,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory building upon one lot. Dwelling groups shall also be allowed in the
districts on certain lots of excessive size, then developed consistent with the character of
adjacent residential uses in the district.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 14,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 14,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 110 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. Front yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

3. Side yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

4. Rear yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 14,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 110 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

12 Ordinance G

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***

SECTION 7: That Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts), is amended to

read as follows:

***
E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

13 Ordinance G

a. Each single-family detached lot is permitted one accessory dwelling
unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit, except that lots having a
duplex or triplex may not have an ADU.
WHEN A LOT HAS NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING, TWO ADUS ARE PERMITTED
IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. A THIRD ADU
MAY BE PERMITTED WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE ADUS
QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE NET LOT SIZE
IS A MINIMUM 43,560 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, LOTS HAVING
A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS, OR
ANY MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT PERMITTED
ANY ADUS.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

***

SECTION 8: That Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

***

TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

*** *** *** ***

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, PLUS AN 30%, PLUS AN
structures are less ADDITIONAL 10% ADDITIONAL 10%
than 20' and 1 story FOR AN ADU FOR AN ADU AND/OR
in height then a AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE
maximum of 30 ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
40% lot coverage is SHADE TOTAL: 40%
allowed. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%

*** *** *** ***

***

14 Ordinance G

SECTION 9: That Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections), is amended to read

as follows: Bulk Regulations

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. The following provisions apply to development in Sections 604
through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision option of
Sections 609 through 618:

***

(2) Closed Projections.

***

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear OR SIDE yard,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: when no portion of
the projection exceeds 15 feet in height; the projection
is no closer to the rear property line than three feet, and
the projection is no closer to a side property line than
allowed by the district; unless a use permit is obtained
in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

(i) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(ii) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(iii) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.

***

15 Ordinance G

SECTION 10: That Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In

Multiple-Family Development), is amended to read as follows:

***

B. 2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with four FIVE or more dwelling units.

***

SECTION 11: That Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures), is

amended to read as follows:

A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

1. In zoning districts where accessory dwelling units are a permitted use, one
ADU is permitted per lot when a single-family detached primary dwelling unit
is also provided, unless otherwise permitted by the zoning district. THIS
SECTION APPLIES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEN A LOT
HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IS
PERMITTED ONE OR MORE ADUS PER THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

2. An ADU is not permitted on a lot with a single-family attached dwelling unit,
a duplex, triplex, or multifamily dwelling units, unless otherwise permitted by
the zoning district. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR
DETACHED FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

a. A MAXIMUM OF ONE ATTACHED ADU MAY BE PROVIDED PER
LOT.

b. A MAXIMUM OF ONE DETACHED ADU MAY BE CONNECTED TO
THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT BY A PORCH, DECK, COVERED
PATIO, CARPORT, BREEZEWAY, OR SIMILAR.

3. An ADUS may be either attached to or detached from the primary dwelling
unit, ARE subject to the following design guidelines:

16 Ordinance G

a. An attached ADU shall be integrated into the design of the primary
dwelling unit so that it appears to be part of one single family home,
rather than a duplex. This guideline does not prohibit the provision of
separate entry features. (P)

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, SHOULD HAVE A
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE IN NATURE AND DESIGN, or as may
be approved by Historic Preservation for HP zoned or designated
properties. (P)

Rationale: ADUs are intended be subordinate to the primary single-family
home and should visually appear as such. An ADU which looks like a
second duplex unit, or a second detached primary dwelling unit, does not
meet this intent. MATERIALS MORE COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES SHOULD BE AVOIDED. HOWEVER,
THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ADU
MATCHES THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, ROOF PITCH, OR FINISHING
MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

4. A detached ADU may be located within the required rear yard, IS subject to
the following:

a. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED
REAR OR SIDE YARD(S), AND/OR WITHIN A REQUIRED ON-LOT
PERIMETER SETBACK WHICH IS NOT ALSO THE FRONT YARD.

a. b. Setbacks.

(1) Minimum ten FIVE feet from a street side property line.

(2) Minimum three feet from an interior SIDE OR REAR property
line.

(3) No setback is required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

(4) FRONT SETBACKS APPLY AS STATED FOR THE
ZONING DISTRICT.

b. c. PERMITTED Height. Maximum 15 feet unless use permit approval
for a greater height is obtained per Section 307.

17 Ordinance G

(1) WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARDS: MAXIMUM 15 FEET, UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER
SECTION 307.

(2) WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY REQUIRED YARD:
THE SAME HEIGHT AS PERMITTED FOR THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT.

5. A detached ADU not located within the required rear yard and compliant
with the same setbacks required for the primary dwelling unit is subject to
the same height regulations as the primary dwelling unit.

6. 5. WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK, Aa detached ADU may not be located between the primary
dwelling unit and the front property line unless use permit approval is
obtained per Section 307.

7. 6. An attached ADU shall comply with same height regulations and setbacks
(including permitted projections per Section 701.A.3) required for the
primary dwelling unit.

8. 7. AnY ADU shall comply with the lot coverage requirements applicable to the
property.

9. 8. AnY ADU shall not have a gross floor area which exceeds 75% of the gross
floor area of the primary dwelling unit, and:

a. For lots up to 10,000 square feet in net area: 1,000 square feet.

b. For lots over 10,000 square feet in net area: the lesser of 3,000
square feet or 10% of the net lot area.

For the purposes of these calculations, any garage, ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURE, or attached carport constructed as part of a detached ADU
shall NOT count toward the gross floor area of the ADU. Any attached
shade structures shall count towards lot coverage, but not gross floor area.

10. Notwithstanding any other provision, using the ADU for an activity requiring
a permit under Chapter 10, Article XVI of the City Code is prohibited.

B. Single-Family Residential Accessory Structures. The following regulations
apply to accessory structures which are not accessory dwelling units, and located
on lots having only single-family residential uses:

18 Ordinance G

1. Accessory structures are not permitted within the required front yard.
Accessory structures located behind the required front setback but between
the primary dwelling unit and the front property line are not permitted unless
use permit approval is obtained per Section 307.

2. SETBACKS.

a. MINIMUM THREE FEET FROM A SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY
LINE.

b. NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY, UNLESS NEEDED FOR REQUIRED
VEHICULAR MANUEVERING.

2. 3. Permitted Heights.

a. WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE YARD, A
Mmaximum height of eight feet IS PERMITTED when located within
ten LESS THAN FIVE feet of FROM a street side property line, AND
A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF or 15 feet IS PERMITTED when located
FIVE FEET OR MORE FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE
elsewhere within the required rear or side yard.

b. Heights in excess of 15 feet, when not located within ten FIVE feet of
OR MORE FROM a street side property line, may be approved
through a use permit obtained per Section 307.

c. An accessory structure not located within the required rear or side
yard and compliant with the same setbacks required for the primary
dwelling unit is subject to the same height regulations as the primary
dwelling unit.

3. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of three
feet adjacent to a rear or side property line, except that no setback is
required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

***

19 Ordinance G

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November,

2024.

________________________________

MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:
_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

20 Ordinance G

ATTACHMENT B

`
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024

Application No. Z-TA-2-24-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add new definitions and revise existing definitions regarding
Accessory Dwelling Units and related residential terms; amend Chapter 6, Section 603
(Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence) and Section 604 (Suburban S-2
District—Ranch or Farm Commercial) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 605
(Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence), Section 606 (Residential
Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence), and Section 607 (Residential R1-14
District—One-Family Residence) to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot
coverage; amend Section 608 (Residential Districts) to comply with HB 2720; amend
Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to increase permitted lot
coverage; amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to comply with HB 2720;
amend Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Development)
to differentiate the addition of ADUs from multi-family developments; and amend
Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to clarify wordings and comply with HB
2720.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-2-24-Y as shown in the
proposed text in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2720, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session (2024) which modified the Arizona Revised Statutes to
require municipalities to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on single-family lots.
The City of Phoenix currently complies with some of the provisions of HB 2720, but not
all of them. This text amendment will bring City of Phoenix zoning regulations in
compliance with the new State regulations regarding ADUs.

HB 2720 includes a clause which prohibits cities from regulating ADUs in any manner if
regulations compliant with the bill are not adopted and effective by January 1, 2025.

Staff Report: Z-TA-2-24
September 30, 2024
Page 2

PROPOSAL
Staff recommend changes to existing sections of the zoning ordinance to comply with all
provisions of HB 2720. Staff also recommend increasing the permitted lot coverage in
certain zoning districts, since the new State regulations require a minimum of two ADUs
be permitted per lot with a single-family home.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) revision of existing City of Phoenix ADU regulations to comply with HB
2720, and 3) revision of lot coverage permissions for certain districts in order to comply
with HB 2720.

1. New and Revised Definitions

HB 2720 requires that the City allow a minimum of one attached and one detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit per lot with a single-family home. Definitions for the
following have been added:

• Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached
• Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached

The definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit” has also been revised slightly to comply
with HB 2720.

2. Revision of Existing ADU Development Standards

The following regulations have been revised to comply with the requirements of HB
2720, as follows:

• The number of ADUs permitted is being increased from one to two ADUs per
lot having a single-family home.
• A third ADU is also permitted per lot when the minimum lot size is one acre,
and at least one of the ADUs is considered “Affordable Housing” (requiring a
deed or other restrictions on the property).
• Design review of ADUs no longer require that an ADU match the exterior
design, roof pitch or finishing materials of the single-family dwelling.
• Setbacks for both attached and detached ADUs have been reduced to 5 feet
where adjacent to a side property line.

Short-Term Rentals in ADUs

This text amendment proposes to remove the current City prohibition of using an
ADU as a Short-Term Rental (STR). Arizona Revised Statutes §9-500.39.B
provides a limited list of items related to STRs which municipalities are permitted to
regulate, and prohibiting use of an ADU as an STR is not included. Perhaps more

Staff Report: Z-TA-2-24
September 30, 2024
Page 3

importantly, HB 2720 includes a new item specifically regarding how a municipality
may require an owner to reside on the property if more than one ADU on a property
is licensed for use as an STR. This provision will be addressed separately as part of
the licensing requirements outlined in City Code, Chapter 10, Article XVI – Short
Term Vacation Rental to comply with HB 2720.

3. Increase of Lot Coverage Permissions in the RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, and RE-35
Zoning Districts

In the City’s first amendment to allow ADUs in 2023 (Z-TA-5-23-Y), certain districts
did not have lot coverage increases provided, since those districts had historically
been allowed “guesthouses”. However, with the new requirement to allow two ADUs
per lot (and possibly three), the lot coverage maximums in the RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
and RE-35 districts have been proposed to be increased by 10%. The one-story
height limitation for all buildings on the lot, required to achieve increased lot
coverage, remains in place. The revised lot coverage permissions are as follows:

• RE-43 lot coverage increases from 20%/30% if all structures one-story, to
20%/40% if all structures are one-story.
• RE-24 lot coverage increases from 25%/30% if all structures one-story, to
25%/40% if all structures are one-story.
• R1-14 lot coverage increases from 25%/30% if all structures one-story, to
25%/40% if all structures are one-story.
• RE-35 (Subdivision Option) lot coverage increases from 25%/30% if all
structures one-story, to 25%/40% if all are structures one-story.

CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, provided in Exhibit A, will bring the
City into compliance with the requirements of HB 2720.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in Exhibit
A.

Writer
C. DePerro
September 30, 2024

Exhibit

A. Proposed Language

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 4

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add new definitions and revise
existing definitions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and related residential
terms.

***

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section, subordinate to
the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same lot and used for a residential
accessory use. ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross
density.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
HAVING A COMMON WALL AND ATTACHED FOUNDATIONS WITH THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT. AN ADU CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IN ANY
OTHER MANNER SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACHED ADU.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, DETACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT AS MAY BE
EXPLICITLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. A DETACHED ADU
MAY INCLUDE AN INTEGRATED GARAGE, CARPORT, OR PORCH. TWO ADUS
ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER, BUT NOT TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SHALL
EACH BE CONSIDERED AS A DETACHED ADU.

***

Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more dwelling units are
provided, not including a permitted accessory dwelling unitS.

***
Section 603. Suburban S-1 District— Ranch or Farm Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence)
to read as follows:

Section 603. Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence.

***
A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 5

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS, and

c. For each additional 10 acres provided above the minimum lot size,
one additional accessory dwelling unit for use by on-site laborers may
be provided.

d. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, ONE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT (ADU) MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY WHEN AT
LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than one acre.

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***
Section 604. Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial)
to read as follows:

Section 604. Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than three acres.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 6

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***
Section 605. Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family
Residence) to read as follows:

Section 605. Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-43 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-43, One-Family Residence DISTRICT, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a
minimum area of 43,560 square feet, and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 7

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 605.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 605.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 605.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 605.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 8

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 605.C.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 43,560 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than 165 feet, nor to have a lot depth of less than
175 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established [front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established] by a line joining the nearest front corner of the
main building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on
the other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more
than fifty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than forty feet in

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 9

depth. On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an
established front yard, the front yard shall be not less than forty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follow an approved plot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than forty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards each having a width of thirty feet.

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than forty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 165 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 175 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 40 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 20 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 10

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
Section 701.a.3.a (1)(b), are not permitted.

***

Section 606. Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence
Amend Chapter 6, Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family
Residence) to read as follows:

Section 606. Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-24 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-24, One Family Residence District, is a district of single-family homes designed to
maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a minimum area of
24,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 11

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 606.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 606.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 606.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 606.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 606.A.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 12

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 24,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 24,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established by a line joining the nearest front corner of the main
building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on the
other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more than
forty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than feet thirty in depth.
On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an established front
yard, the front yard shall be not less than thirty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follows an approved lot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than thirty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards which shall have the following minimum
widths:

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 13

a. Fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot.

b. Ten feet on an interior side yard.

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than thirty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley or from what would be the centerline of a full sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 24,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 130 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 14

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***
Section 607. Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence)
to read as follows:

Section 607. Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned R1-14 prior to September 13,
1981.

The R1-14, One-Family Resident RESIDENCE District, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect, and preserve a character of development on lots with
minimum area of 14,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory building upon one lot. Dwelling groups shall also be allowed in the
districts on certain lots of excessive size, then developed consistent with the character of
adjacent residential uses in the district.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

***
1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 14,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 14,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 110 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. Front yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

3. Side yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

4. Rear yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 14,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 110 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 15

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***

Section 608. Residential Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residential Districts.

***
E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 16

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

a. Each single-family detached lot is permitted one accessory dwelling
unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit, except that lots having a
duplex or triplex may not have an ADU.
WHEN A LOT HAS NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING, TWO ADUS ARE PERMITTED
IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. A THIRD ADU
MAY BE PERMITTED WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE ADUS
QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE NET LOT SIZE
IS A MINIMUM 43,560 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, LOTS HAVING
A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS, OR
ANY MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT PERMITTED
ANY ADUS.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

***

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

***

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 17

TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

*** *** *** ***

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, PLUS AN 30%, PLUS AN
structures are less ADDITIONAL 10% ADDITIONAL 10%
than 20' and 1 story FOR AN ADU FOR AN ADU AND/OR
in height then a AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE
maximum of 30 ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
40% lot coverage is SHADE TOTAL: 40%
allowed. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%

*** *** *** ***

***
Section 701. Bulk Regulations
Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. The following provisions apply to development in Sections 604
through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision option of
Sections 609 through 618:

***

(2) Closed Projections.

***

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 18

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear OR SIDE yard,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: when no portion of
the projection exceeds 15 feet in height; the projection
is no closer to the rear property line than three feet, and
the projection is no closer to a side property line than
allowed by the district; unless a use permit is obtained
in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

(i) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(ii) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(iii) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.

***
Section 703.B Bulk Regulations (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development)
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to read as follows:
***
B. 2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with four FIVE or more dwelling units.

***
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to revise language
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, as follows:

Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.

A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 19

1. In zoning districts where accessory dwelling units are a permitted use, one
ADU is permitted per lot when a single-family detached primary dwelling unit
is also provided, unless otherwise permitted by the zoning district. THIS
SECTION APPLIES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEN A LOT
HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IS
PERMITTED ONE OR MORE ADUS PER THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

2. An ADU is not permitted on a lot with a single-family attached dwelling unit,
a duplex, triplex, or multifamily dwelling units, unless otherwise permitted by
the zoning district. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR
DETACHED FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

a. A MAXIMUM OF ONE ATTACHED ADU MAY BE PROVIDED PER
LOT.

b. A MAXIMUM OF ONE DETACHED ADU MAY BE CONNECTED TO
THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT BY A PORCH, DECK, COVERED
PATIO, CARPORT, BREEZEWAY, OR SIMILAR.

3. An ADUS may be either attached to or detached from the primary dwelling
unit, ARE subject to the following design guidelines:

a. An attached ADU shall be integrated into the design of the primary
dwelling unit so that it appears to be part of one single family home,
rather than a duplex. This guideline does not prohibit the provision of
separate entry features. (P)

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, SHOULD HAVE A
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE IN NATURE AND DESIGN, or as may
be approved by Historic Preservation for HP zoned or designated
properties. (P)

Rationale: ADUs are intended be subordinate to the primary single-family
home and should visually appear as such. An ADU which looks like a
second duplex unit, or a second detached primary dwelling unit, does not
meet this intent. MATERIALS MORE COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES SHOULD BE AVOIDED. HOWEVER,
THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ADU
MATCHES THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, ROOF PITCH, OR FINISHING
MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 20

4. A detached ADU may be located within the required rear yard, IS subject to
the following:

a. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED
REAR OR SIDE YARD(S), AND/OR WITHIN A REQUIRED ON-LOT
PERIMETER SETBACK WHICH IS NOT ALSO THE FRONT YARD.

a. b. Setbacks.

(1) Minimum ten FIVE feet from a street side property line.

(2) Minimum three feet from an interior SIDE OR REAR property
line.

(3) No setback is required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

(4) FRONT SETBACKS APPLY AS STATED FOR THE
ZONING DISTRICT.

b. c. PERMITTED Height. Maximum 15 feet unless use permit approval
for a greater height is obtained per Section 307.

(1) WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARDS: MAXIMUM 15 FEET, UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER
SECTION 307.

(2) WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY REQUIRED YARD:
THE SAME HEIGHT AS PERMITTED FOR THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT.

5. A detached ADU not located within the required rear yard and compliant
with the same setbacks required for the primary dwelling unit is subject to
the same height regulations as the primary dwelling unit.

6. 5. WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK, Aa detached ADU may not be located between the primary
dwelling unit and the front property line unless use permit approval is
obtained per Section 307.

7. 6. An attached ADU shall comply with same height regulations and setbacks
(including permitted projections per Section 701.A.3) required for the
primary dwelling unit.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 21

8. 7. AnY ADU shall comply with the lot coverage requirements applicable to the
property.

9. 8. AnY ADU shall not have a gross floor area which exceeds 75% of the gross
floor area of the primary dwelling unit, and:

a. For lots up to 10,000 square feet in net area: 1,000 square feet.

b. For lots over 10,000 square feet in net area: the lesser of 3,000
square feet or 10% of the net lot area.

For the purposes of these calculations, any garage, ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURE, or attached carport constructed as part of a detached ADU
shall NOT count toward the gross floor area of the ADU. Any attached
shade structures shall count towards lot coverage, but not gross floor area.

10. Notwithstanding any other provision, using the ADU for an activity requiring
a permit under Chapter 10, Article XVI of the City Code is prohibited.

B. Single-Family Residential Accessory Structures. The following regulations
apply to accessory structures which are not accessory dwelling units, and located
on lots having only single-family residential uses:

1. Accessory structures are not permitted within the required front yard.
Accessory structures located behind the required front setback but between
the primary dwelling unit and the front property line are not permitted unless
use permit approval is obtained per Section 307.

2. SETBACKS.

a. MINIMUM THREE FEET FROM A SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY
LINE.

b. NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY, UNLESS NEEDED FOR REQUIRED
VEHICULAR MANUEVERING.

2. 3. Permitted Heights.

a. WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE YARD, A
Mmaximum height of eight feet IS PERMITTED when located within
ten LESS THAN FIVE feet of FROM a street side property line, AND
A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF or 15 feet IS PERMITTED WHEN
LOCATED FIVE FEET OR MORE FROM A STREET SIDE
PROPERTY LINE. elsewhere within the required rear or side yard.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 22

b. Heights in excess of 15 feet, when not located within ten FIVE feet of
OR MORE FROM a street side property line, may be approved
through a use permit obtained per Section 307.

c. An accessory structure not located within the required rear or side
yard and compliant with the same setbacks required for the primary
dwelling unit is subject to the same height regulations as the primary
dwelling unit.

3. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of three
feet adjacent to a rear or side property line, except that no setback is
required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

***

Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

Public Hearing - Amend Phoenix City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Chapter
10, Article XVI - Short-Term Vacation Rental (Ordinance G-7323) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the City Code
sections 10-197 and 10-204 to Chapter 10, Article XVI related to Short-Term
Vacation Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-500.39
requirements for obtaining a Short-Term Rental (STR) Permit.

Summary
In 2016, the Arizona Legislature removed the ability of local jurisdictions to regulate
short-term rental units and required that the use be treated the same as any long-
term residential use of a property. Due to significant negative impacts based upon
the experience of residents living around these short-term rental uses, the Arizona
Legislature enacted A.R.S. 9-500.39 authorizing municipalities to create provisions
for registrations of short-term vacation rentals. The City of Phoenix adopted Short-
Term Vacation Rental Ordinance (G-6653) to implement the requirement for STR
owners, or designees, to register each STR rental property with the City of Phoenix,
so that responsible party contact information was available if there were problems
resulting from a particular short-term rental unit.

In 2022, the Arizona Legislature approved Senate Bill 1168 (SB1168) amending
A.R.S. 9-500.39, which authorized cities and towns to create a very limited
permit/license process to help gather better data regarding short-term rentals with
minimal modifications to the ability to regulate these types of uses. The City of
Phoenix adopted an amendment to the Short-Term Vacation Rental Ordinance (G-
7156) to implement the requirement for STR owners, or designees, to apply for a
STR permit and meet specific operating requirements prior to the issuance of a
permit as a condition for operating a short-term rental property.

In 2024, the Arizona Legislature approved House Bill 2720 (HB2720) amending
A.R.S. 9-500.39, which authorized cities and towns to require the owner of a
property where an accessory dwelling unit is used as an short term rental to reside
on the property but only if the accessory dwelling unit was built after September 14,
2024, and either the owner did not previously have the right to build an accessory

dwelling unit on their property or the three-year A.R.S. 12-1134 statute of limitations
has passed.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the City Code sections
10-197 and 10-204 to Chapter 10, Article XVI related to Short-Term Vacation
Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-500.39(B)(9)
requirements for obtaining a STR Permit.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.

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 CODE OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE XVI -- SHORT-
TERM VACATION RENTAL.

____________

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 10, Article XVI -- Short-Term Vacation Rental is

amended to read as follows:

***

Sec. 10-197. Short-term rental permit applications; content

A. Each applicant for a short-term rental permit shall submit, as applicable, the following:

1. The physical address of the residential property proposed to be used as a
short-term rental.

2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the owner for
which the short-term rental registration certificate is to be issued.

3. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the owner’s
designee.

4. The name, address, 24-hour telephone number, and email address of the
individual who will serve as the emergency point of contact.

5. Proof of valid transaction privilege tax license.

6. Evidence of liability insurance appropriate to cover the short-term rental in the
aggregate of at least $500,000.00 or evidence that each short-term rental

1 Ordinance G- 786
transaction will be provided through a platform that provides equal or greater
primary liability insurance coverage for the short-term rental.

7. Evidence that the short-term rental is registered with the Maricopa County
Assessor’s Office in accordance with Section 33-1902, Arizona Revised Statutes.

8. A signed agreement to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and
ordinances, including paying all fees and fines imposed by the City.

9. If the applicant is an individual, proof of lawful presence in the United States.

10. A written description or map showing the locations of the smoke detector,
carbon monoxide detector, fire extinguisher, and other required safety equipment.

11. IF THE APPLICATION IS FOR OPERATION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL
IN AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) ON A PROPERTY WHERE MORE
THAN ONE ADU EXISTS, A SIGNED ATTESTATION THAT THE PROPERTY
OWNER WILL RESIDE ON THE PROPERTY WHEN MORE THAN ONE ADU IS
BEING OPERATED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

11. 12. Any other information as the Planning and Development Department may
require to verify information provided by the applicant.

B. An SEPARATE application must be filed for each DWELLING UNIT ON A single-
family property, each dwelling unit in a one-to-four family house, and each individual
unit in a multi-family property such as a condominium or cooperative.

***

Sec. 10-204. Short-term rental; prohibited uses.

A. Renting, or offering for rent, a short-term rental for the following uses is prohibited:

1. A nonresidential use;

2. Holding a special event that requires a permit or license pursuant to a City or
Town ordinance or State law or rule;

3. Operating a retail business, restaurant, banquet hall, or similar use;

4. Knowingly housing registered sex offenders, or allowing registered sex
offenders to occupy the short-term rental;

5. Operating or maintaining a sober living home;

6. Selling liquor, illegal drugs, or pornography;

7. Operating nude or topless dancing;

2 Ordinance G- 787
8. Obscenity;

9. Adult-oriented business;

10. An event center; OR

11. Use or occupying any portion of an accessory dwelling unit; or

12 11. Any other use prohibited by Section 9-500.39, Arizona Revised Statutes.
***

SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2025.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November,

2024.

________________________________
MAYOR

________________________________
Date
ATTEST:

____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:__________________________

__________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

3 Ordinance G- 788

Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing -
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family
(ARM) ARM Overlay District - Z-TA-3-24-Y (Ordinance G-7318) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-3-24-Y and
to request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation
which amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions)
to revise and clarify definitions regarding affordable housing and related items;
replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District - High-Rise and High
Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multi-family (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the provision of the
TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. This is a companion case to Z-136-24-Y and
should be heard first, followed by Z-136-24-Y.

Summary
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and
revised definitions; 2) creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-
Family (ARM) Overlay District, and 3) revision of the overlapping TOD-1 and TOD-2
Overlay District requirements so as not to conflict with the new regulations 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-3-24-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the
revised Staff Report (Attachment B).
VPC Info: Eight Village Planning Committees heard this item for information only
throughout September, as reflected in Attachment C.
VPC Action: Eight Village Planning Committees considered the request. Four VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; One VPC recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; One VPC recommended
denial and Two VPCs did not have quorum, as reflected in Attachment C.

PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, for
information only.
PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on November
7, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.

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
REVISE AND CLARIFY DEFINITIONS REGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RELATED ITEMS; REPLACE
CHAPTER 6, SECTION 632 (HIGH-RISE H-R1 DISTRICT – HIGH-
RISE AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT) AND ESTABLISH A NEW
ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY
DISTRICT; AND AMEND SECTION 662 (INTERIM TRANSIT-
ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE (TOD-1)) AND
SECTION 663 (TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT TWO (TOD-2)) TO CLARIFY HOW THE NEW SECTION
632 INTERACTS WITH THE PROVISION OF THE TOD-1 AND
TOD-2 OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to revise

existing definitions and add new definitions, as follows:

***
ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE: COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE
BUILDING(S) ON A SITE THAT ARE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR OR HAVE A FIFTY
PERCENT VACANCY IN THE TOTAL LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.
***
Affordable Housing, AFFORDABLE: Residential or mixed-use development providing
HUD or other assisted low-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 799
HOUSING, WORKFORCE: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED 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 OF AT LEAST 80 PERCENT
AND UP TO 120 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

***

SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise

and High Density District), is amended to strike everything and replace with the

following text:

SECTION 632. ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING
REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10, AS
FOLLOWS:

1. PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE NON-
RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS.

2. ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT ON EXISTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN THIS SECTION.

B. APPLICABILITY. THIS OVERLAY APPLIES TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE
ADOPTED TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC), PER THE MAP
PROVIDED BELOW, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

1. NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION,
AS FOLLOWS:

a. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP OR HP-L.

2 Ordinance 800
b. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

2. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN EITHER THE
GATEWAY TOC OR THE 50TH STREET STATION AREA.

3. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE PER
CHAPTER 12.

4. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED WALKABLE URBAN CODE
PER CHAPTER 13.

3 Ordinance 801
4 Ordinance 802
C. CONFLICTS.

1. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC PLAN,
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, OR SIMILAR REGULATORY PLAN ADOPTED
BY COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLY
ONLY WHEN THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ADOPTED
REGULATORY PLANS.

2. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS (SECTIONS 662 AND
663, RESPECTIVELY), THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS DO NOT
APPLY WHEN CHAPTER 13 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE
UTILIZED FOR A DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
632.H.2.b.

D. VARIANCES. A PROVISION OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY BE MODIFIED
THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS DISCUSSED IN SECTION 307, BUT
ONLY WHEN THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT CAUSE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.

E. PERMITTED USES. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICTS EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

F. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS
APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
OVERLAY DISTRICT:

1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507 IS REQUIRED.

a. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL EXPLICITLY STATE WHICH, IF
ANY, OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE TO
BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.

2. ADEQUATE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS DETERMINED
BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE
CODES IS REQUIRED.

5 Ordinance 803
4. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE
MUST BE ECONOMICALLY OR FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, AS
DEMONSTRATED TO AND APPROVED BY PDD.

5. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT (APPROVED TOGETHER ON ONE SITE PLAN), AND
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IS AT
LEAST ONE NET ACRE BUT DOES NOT EXCEED 20 NET ACRES.

G. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE
OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITHIN
THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION
F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. AUTOMOBILE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

2. SETBACKS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS
GREATER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE
PROPOSED USE MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EXISTING
SETBACK SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED BY
RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

b. IF THE PROPOSED USE HAS SPACING OR SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING,
THOSE PROVISIONS STILL APPLY.

3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS LESS
THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE PROPOSED USE
MAY BE PROVIDED AT ANY HEIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING
BUILDING SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS A USE
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

6 Ordinance 804
b. ANY NEW BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT
PROVISIONS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

H. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY
AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN
ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE SHALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-5 (SECTION 618), R-4A (SECTION 619),
C-1 (SECTION 622), C-2 (SECTION 623), OR C-3 (SECTION 624).

2. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ONLY ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING (a OR b):

a. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, OR

b. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 13, WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, TRANSECT T5:5, WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) DENSITY IS NOT RESTRICTED.

(2) HEIGHT IS RESTRICTED TO FIVE STORIES AND 56 FEET
IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT THAT FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET.

(3) A MINIMUM OF TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
AND/OR WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR A MINIMUM TERM
OF TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
CITY’S HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

7 Ordinance 805
3. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS STATED IN THIS SECTION, IN ADDITION TO ALL NON-
RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH USES
WITHIN THE T5:5 TRANSECT. HOWEVER, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE
UNDERLYING ZONING ALSO PERMITS THE PROPOSED NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES.

I. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—OTHER. A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER SUBSECTION G OR SUBSECTION H ABOVE MUST
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
UNDERLYING ZONING FOR THE SITE.

***

SECTION 3: That Chapter 6, Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning

Overlay District One (TOD-1)), is amended to read as follows:

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-1) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-1 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

8 Ordinance 806
1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-1 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

SECTION 4: That Chapter 6, Section 663 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning

Overlay District Two (TOD-2)), is amended to read as follows:

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-2) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-2 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS OF
TOD-2 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL APPLY
TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

9 Ordinance 807
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November, 2024.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:
_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

10 Ordinance 808
ATTACHMENT B

*REVISED
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-3-24-Y *and Z-136-24-Y
September 24, 2024

Application Nos. Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions regarding affordable
housing and related items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District –
High-Rise and High Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multi-
family (ARM) Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the provision of the
TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts; and to establish the boundary of the Adaptive
Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the language
in Exhibit A, and Z-136-24-Y be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

BACKGROUND
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2297, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session (2024) which modified the Arizona Revised Statutes to
require municipalities to allow 1) adaptive reuse of existing, “economically and
functionally obsolete” commercial buildings by non-residential uses by right, and 2)
multi-family conversion of existing commercial sites by right. Both permissions are
required in “not more than 10% of the total existing commercial, office or mixed use
buildings within the municipality.” However, in order to qualify for these by-right
permissions, a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units provided must be set aside for
low-income (“Affordable”) or moderate-income (“Workforce”) housing for a minimum of
20 years after initial occupation, in addition to meeting other criteria outlined in the bill.

The requirements of HB 2297 require that zoning and other regulations be updated to
comply no later than January 1, 2025.

PURPOSE
In terms of non-residential adaptive reuse, the City of Phoenix has an existing robust
program, and few changes are required. The City also has existing permissions for
conversions of commercially zoned properties to multi-family developments, and

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 2

generally it is the development standards (setbacks, height, density, etc.) which require
revisions due to HB 2297. In particular, the bill requires greater height and dwelling unit
density than currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.

PROPOSAL
Staff recommends an overlay district over the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)
area, with exceptions for Downtown Code and WU Code zoned properties, which
already have existing permissions for greater height and density. The TOC area was
chosen because it had been identified by prior studies as the area where such height
and development density should be encouraged. The Gateway TOC and 50th Street
Station Areas have been exempted since the bill does not permit inclusion of areas in
close proximity to a commercial airport. A map of the Transit-Oriented Communities is
provided below.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM)

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 3

Overlay District, and 3) revision of the overlapping TOD-1 and TOD-2 Overlay District
requirements so as not to conflict with the new regulations.

1. New and Revised Definitions

HB 2297 requires that any multi-family development which develops under the
provisions of the bill provide a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units provided as
low- or moderate-income housing. The City of Phoenix typically uses different
terms: “Affordable Housing” as low-income housing, which is for residents earning
up to 80% of the area median income; and “Workforce Housing”, which is for
residents earning from 80% to 120% of the area median income. These definitions
are proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance, although “Affordable Housing” is
already existing and is slightly revised for consistency.

HB 2297 also includes a requirement that an existing commercial building be
“economically and functionally obsolete” in order to qualify for the provisions
regarding adaptive reuse. The bill provides the definition, which in turn is proposed
to be added to the Zoning Ordinance.

2. Creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-family (ARM) Overlay
District

The existing Section 632, High-Rise H-R1 District – High-Rise and High Density
District, applied only to the area long-since rezoned as Downtown Code (Chapter 12
of the Zoning Ordinance) and now is an archaic section of the Zoning Ordinance.
This text amendment proposes to remove it and use its place in the Zoning
Ordinance for the new ARM Overlay District.

HB 2297 requires that the City designate “not more than 10% of the total existing
commercial, office, or mixed use buildings within the municipality” for adaptive reuse
and/or multi-family conversion, by right (i.e. no public hearings). However, there are
eligibility criteria provided in the bill, which in turn are provided in the standards of
Section 632.

Objective Standards
A municipality must require the following objective standards, but no more, to qualify
for the by-right permissions of HB 2297:
• An administrative site plan review process.
• Determination of adequate public water and sewer to serve the site.
• Compliance with all applicable building construction and fire codes.
• Determination that any existing on-site building is “economically and
functionally obsolete”.
• A minimum parcel size of one acre, and a maximum size of 20 acres.

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 4

• Requirement that a minimum of 10% of the provided dwelling units are either
low- and/or moderate-income housing (affordable and/or workforce housing).

Height and Density
In addition to the Objective Standards, by-right multi-family development has
requirements regarding permitted height and density:

• Height may not exceed (but also not be less than) five stories, except where
within 100 feet of single-family zoned properties, where the height may be
limited to two stories.
• Density shall be equal to the highest allowable density within one mile of the
building to be redeveloped.

Exemptions
HB 2297 also includes exemptions for properties adjacent to an FAA-licensed
airport, and properties designated as historic. Section 632 is written to exempt HP
and HP-L designated properties, and does not include the TOC areas directly to the
north and adjacent to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.

Implementation within Transit-Oriented Communities
The new Section 632 includes the objective standards, height and density
requirements, and exemptions as stated in HB 2297. The height and density
provision will be discussed in more detail, as it is these provisions which led staff to
suggest an overlay over the City’s designated Transit-Oriented Communities.

The height requirement of HB 2297—five stories—is permitted within the Walkable
Urban Code, starting with the T5:5 transect. Therefore, staff have proposed that
development qualifying for use of the ARM overlay be permitted to developed in
accordance with Chapter 13 (WU Code), T5:5 development standards.

The density requirement of HB 2297 is quite permissive, especially since adjacent
portions of Downtown and properties zoned Walkable Urban Code have unrestricted
(unlimited) density. Since that could lead to properties within a one-mile radius of a
site developed under the provisions of HB 2297 also being allowed unlimited
density, staff propose to allow unlimited density by right for projects subject to these
regulations, but only in areas already identified for unrestricted density and future
conversion to Walkable Urban Code—the Transit-Oriented Communities.

Permitted Uses
The ARM Overlay District does not add or prohibit any additional uses; it simply
allows multi-family development and adaptive reuse to develop with more density
and intensity, by right, within districts which already permit it. The proposed ARM
Overlay District would not remove the underlying zoning classifications; rather, it
would “overlay” the underlying zoning districts. A property currently zoned “C-2 HRI”
would become “C-2 HRI ARMOD” if approved as proposed.

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 5

As an example, C-2 already permits multi-family development, but only to a
maximum height of four stories, and with a maximum density of approximately 15
dwelling units per acre. A property located within the ARM Overlay District could
choose to develop up to 5 stories, with no density limitations, but with the overlay
requirement of 10% affordable and/or workforce housing, in addition to the other
objective standards for applicability, such as lot size. However, the overlay is
proposed to be permissive: a developer could still choose to develop per the
existing zoning requirements, but with none of the additional height or density
provisions of the ARM Overlay District.

Qualifying Buildings/Sites
As stated earlier, HB 2297 requires that the City allow by-right adaptive reuse and/or
multi-family development on “not more than 10% of the total existing commercial,
office, or mixed use buildings within the municipality.” Staff have proposed an area
appropriate for such development, but also with a high concentration of these types
of uses and buildings. While the proposed area of the ARM Overlay District
comprises 6.1% of the City’s total land area, it includes more than 20% of the
properties within the City zoned R-5, C-1, C-2, and C-3, which are the primary
districts where commercial, office, and mixed use buildings are permitted. The
provisions for adaptive reuse may also be applied on additional properties zoned for
office park and light industrial uses (Commerce Park, A-1, and A-2) within the ARM
Overlay District.

3. TOD-1 and TOD-2 Overlay District and other conflicts with ARM Overlay
District requirements.

The Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1) and the Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2) are existing overlay districts
applied along the Valley Metro Light Rail corridor and will overlap with much of the
area proposed for the ARM Overlay District. Staff propose that for projects
developing under the provisions of the ARM Overlay District—use of Chapter 13,
Walkable Urban Code standards—would not also be subject to the development
standards of TOD-1 or TOD-2. This is consistent with properties rezoned to
Walkable Urban Code, which have the TOD overlay removed when rezoning to WU
Code.

The ARM Overlay District development standards would not override any other
existing special planning areas having adopted regulatory plans, such as
neighborhood plans, Specific Plans, or other overlay districts. Rather, the ARM
Overlay District provisions can be applied when they do not conflict with any other
regulatory standards of such special planning areas.

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 6

*ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE Z-136-24-Y
Case Z-136-24-Y has been created to officially establish the zoning boundary of the
proposed ARM Overlay District over the Transit Oriented Communities, with the
exceptions as described above. The map of the proposed boundary is attached as
Exhibit B.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District, comprising a
large portion of the City’s Transit-Oriented Communities, is the most appropriate location
for the by-right adaptive reuse and multi-family redevelopment entitlements required by
HB 2297, not only because of the proximity to mass transit and prior studies leading to
the designation of the TOC, but also because the area encompasses a large portion of
the City’s existing commercial, office, and mixed use buildings.

Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the language in Exhibit A, and Z-136-
24-Y be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

Writer
C. DePerro
September 24, 2024

Exhibits

A. Proposed Language
B. Sketch Map / Proposed Boundary

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 7

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as
follows:
***
ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE: COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE
BUILDING(S) ON A SITE THAT ARE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR OR HAVE A FIFTY
PERCENT VACANCY IN THE TOTAL LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.
***
Affordable Housing, AFFORDABLE: Residential or mixed-use development providing
HUD or other assisted low-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.

HOUSING, WORKFORCE: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED 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 OF AT LEAST 80 PERCENT
AND UP TO 120 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

***

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 8

Section 632. High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High Density District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High
Density District) to strike everything, and replace with the following text:

SECTION 632. ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING
REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10, AS
FOLLOWS:

1. PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE NON-
RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS.

2. ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT ON EXISTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN THIS SECTION.

B. APPLICABILITY. THIS OVERLAY APPLIES TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE
ADOPTED TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES, PER THE MAP PROVIDED
BELOW, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

1. NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION,
AS FOLLOWS:

a. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP OR HP-L.

b. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

2. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN EITHER THE
GATEWAY TOC OR THE 50TH STREET STATION AREA.

3. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE PER
CHAPTER 12.

4. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED WALKABLE URBAN CODE
PER CHAPTER 13.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 9

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 10

C. CONFLICTS.

1. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC PLAN,
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, OR SIMILAR REGULATORY PLAN ADOPTED
BY COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLY
ONLY WHEN THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ADOPTED
REGULATORY PLANS.

2. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS (SECTIONS 662 AND
663, RESPECTIVELY), THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS DO NOT
APPLY WHEN CHAPTER 13 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE
UTILIZED FOR A DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
632.H.2.b.

D. VARIANCES. A PROVISION OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY BE MODIFIED
THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS DISCUSSED IN SECTION 307, BUT
ONLY WHEN THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT CAUSE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.

E. PERMITTED USES. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICTS EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

F. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS
APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
OVERLAY DISTRICT:

1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507 IS REQUIRED.

a. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL EXPLICITLY STATE WHICH, IF
ANY, OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE TO
BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.

2. ADEQUATE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS DETERMINED
BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 11

3. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE
CODES IS REQUIRED.

4. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE
MUST BE ECONOMICALLY OR FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, AS
DEMONSTRATED TO AND APPROVED BY PDD.

5. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT (APPROVED TOGETHER ON ONE SITE PLAN), AND
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IS AT
LEAST ONE NET ACRE BUT DOES NOT EXCEED 20 NET ACRES.

G. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE
OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITHIN
THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION
F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. AUTOMOBILE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

2. SETBACKS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS
GREATER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE
PROPOSED USE MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EXISTING
SETBACK SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED BY
RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

b. IF THE PROPOSED USE HAS SPACING OR SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING,
THOSE PROVISIONS STILL APPLY.

3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 12

a. IF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS LESS
THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE PROPOSED USE
MAY BE PROVIDED AT ANY HEIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING
BUILDING SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS A USE
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

b. ANY NEW BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT
PROVISIONS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

H. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY
AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN
ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE SHALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-5 (SECTION 618), R-4A (SECTION 619),
C-1 (SECTION 622), C-2 (SECTION 623), OR C-3 (SECTION 624).

2. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ONLY ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING (a OR b):

a. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, OR

b. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 13, WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, TRANSECT T5:5, WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) DENSITY IS NOT RESTRICTED.

(2) HEIGHT IS RESTRICTED TO FIVE STORIES AND 56 FEET
IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT THAT FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 13

(3) A MINIMUM OF TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
AND/OR WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR A MINIMUM TERM
OF TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
CITY’S HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

3. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS STATED IN THIS SECTION, IN ADDITION TO ALL NON-
RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH USES
WITHIN THE T5:5 TRANSECT. HOWEVER, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE
UNDERLYING ZONING ALSO PERMITS THE PROPOSED NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES.

I. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—OTHER. A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER SUBSECTION G OR SUBSECTION H ABOVE MUST
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
UNDERLYING ZONING FOR THE SITE.

***

Section 662. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1).
Amend Chapter 6, Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1)) to amend as follows:

Section 662. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1).

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-1) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 14

C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-1 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-1 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

Section 663. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-2).
Amend Chapter 6, Section 663 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to amend as follows:

Section 663. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2).

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-2) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-2 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 15

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-2 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

7TH S T

TATUM BLV D
SHEA BLVD

HATCHER RD

E
NORTHERN AV

w
GLENDALE AVE v

43RD AVE
LI N OLN DR
w
v
60 C
BETHANY HOME RD

35TH AVE 27TH AVE
MISSOURI AVE

95TH AVE
12TH ST
CAMELBACK RD

83RD AVE INDIAN SCHOOL RD 16TH ST

32ND ST
91ST AVE 15TH AVE
w
v
GR
AN
D
OSBORN RD
THOMAS RD
AV
E 40TH ST

§
¨
¦ 24TH ST 44TH ST 52ND ST
1ST AVE
w
v

VAN BUREN ST

75TH AVE 67TH AVE
59TH AVE
BUCKEYE RD §
¨
¦
SKY H ARBOR BLVD

81ST AVE
MOHAVE ST

107TH AVE 99TH AVE 51ST AVE
LOWER BUCKEYE RD SITY DR

63RD AVE
UN
v
w
19TH AVE
IVE 143
BROADWAY RD R

48TH ST
SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

DOBBINS RD

¯ Miles Z-136-24
0 1.25 2.5 5

VILLAGE: Various
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Various

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
FROM: Various Zoning Districts
DATE:
9/25/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-136-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP TO: Various Underlying Zoning Districts with the
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D8, F3-F9, G3-9,H7-H8, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family Overlay District
20373.69 Acres Various I7, J6-J7, K6-K7

MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 824
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-136-24\Z-136-24.aprx
ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-3-24-Y: Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Village Information Recommendation Recommendations Vote
Only Date Date
Alhambra 8/27/24 10/22/24 Approval, per the staff 11-2
recommendation
Camelback 9/10/24 10/1/24 Approval, per the staff 16-0
East recommendation
Central 9/9/24 10/21/24 Approval, per the staff 10-0
City recommendation
Encanto 9/9/24 10/7/24 Denial 8-4-1
Estrella 9/17/24 10/15/24 No quorum n/a
Maryvale 9/11/24 10/9/24 No quorum n/a
North 9/18/24 10/16/24 Approval, per the staff 13-0
Mountain recommendation
South 9/10/24 10/8/24 Approval, per the staff 12-0
Mountain recommendation, with
direction

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting August 27, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation on the text amendment Z-TA-3-24
regarding the new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District. Mr. Rogers
explained that the text amendment is in response to HB 2297 which requires that
municipalities provide administrative permissions for adaptive reuse of existing
commercial structures and the conversation of commercial properties to multifamily
uses on up to 10 percent of commercial properties. Mr. Rogers explained that the City
of Phoenix is creating the ARM Overlay District which will facilitate adaptive reuse and
multifamily development, explained that the allowed height and intensity for multifamily
developments within the overlay would be equivalent to the Walkable Urban Code T5:5
district, and explained that the overlay will be located within the designated Transit
Oriented Communities (TOC).

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
August 27, 2024

Committee Member Keith Ender asked who bears the financial responsibility for the
affordable housing. Mr. Rogers explained that developers are required to provide 10%
of the total number of units built as affordable housing. Mr. Rogers explained that
developers bear the costs, but these costs could potentially be passed on to renters.

Committee Member Martin Shultz asked about the purpose of the proposed
amendments from Mr. Rogers' perspective. Mr. Rogers explained that the text
amendment addresses two key components: adaptive reuse and multifamily housing.
Mr. Rogers emphasized that these changes are in response to state law, which allows
for higher density and height by right, while also requiring affordable housing provisions.
Mr. Rogers expressed confidence in how the City responded to the state bill and
acknowledged that the proposed amendments might be more contentious in some
Transit-Oriented Communities than in others.

Committee Member Shultz expressed interest in receiving more information over time
regarding the need for affordable housing. Committee Member Shultz explained that
significant investments have been made in Transit-Oriented Communities and related
infrastructure improvements, and explained that it makes sense for the City to capitalize
on these investments. Committee Member Shultz requested additional information on
transit-oriented development (TOD), infill, and the City's plans for developing specific
areas.

Committee Member Pamela Fitzgerald expressed frustration, stating that she wishes
the state would allow cities more autonomy to manage their own affairs.

Committee Member Shultz explained that the City does not operate in isolation and
emphasized that as the City continues to grow, there are defined roles for various levels
of government.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 827
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 22, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 11-2

VPC DISCUSSION

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily development
and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Charles Jones asked about the mile distance requirement. Mr.
Rogers explained that state law requires cities to allow 10% of their commercial areas
to develop up to five stories with densities equivalent to the highest zoning district within
one mile of the subject property. Mr. Rogers stated that the City of Phoenix applied this
by allowing sites within existing Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) to develop
according to Walkable Urban (WU) Code T5:5 standards, permitting unlimited density
and five-story buildings.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 22, 2024

Committee Member Martin Shultz stated that this policy originated from state law and
questioned whether cities should control zoning or if state involvement is appropriate.
Committee Member Shultz stated that the motivation behind some legislation is to
create challenges for transit-oriented development. Mr. Rogers discussed the balance
of benefits and risks in the relationship between city zoning authority and state
regulations. Committee Member Shultz explained that determining zoning jurisdiction is
complex and raised the importance of regional planning and described the politics that
opposed the Capitol Mall light rail expansion.

Committee Member Quanta Crews expressed support for how Phoenix applied the
state law through an overlay, explained she supported the law as a state legislator due
to its potential to create affordable housing, and asked about the public engagement
process. Mr. Rogers clarified that the application of the ARM Overlay will be an
administrative process that does not require public hearings, stated that the overlay will
not alter existing rezoning procedures, and reiterated that the ARM Overlay applies
within established high-intensity policy areas.

Committee Member Marshall Pimentel highlighted the benefit of affordable housing
through this process, stated that the overlay is a small but positive step, and explained
that Arizona’s prohibition on mandatory inclusionary housing presents barriers.

Committee Member David Krietor raised concerns about the proposed five-story
allowance, stated that some commercial properties in the ARM Overlay are adjacent to
single-family homes, and described previously conflicts over height within the Alhambra
Village. Mr. Rogers explained that developments within 100 feet of single-family zoning
are limited to two stories.

Committee Member Jones requested clarification on the ARM Overlay boundaries.
Mr. Rogers presented the ARM Overlay boundaries.

Committee Member Jones asked if affordable housing was mandatory for projects
utilizing the ARM Overlay and asked about funding. Mr. Rogers confirmed that
affordable housing is required for multifamily developed under the ARM Overlay, stated
that the affordable housing is funded by developers, and explained that developers
could choose to rezone if they wish to avoid providing affordable housing.

Committee Member Crews questioned the appropriate distance requirement for the
two-story height limitation near single-family zones and whether 300 feet would be more
appropriate. Committee Member Krietor described Alhambra’s support for affordable
housing, explained conflicts over height near single-family areas, and stated that
overlay may lead to potential disputes regarding height. Committee Member Jones
explained that step-downs are sometimes required and stated that determining an
optimal distance from single family to limit the height is challenging.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 829
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 22, 2024

Committee Member John Owens asked whether the presentation’s reference to 20%
of commercial areas being within ARM Overlay included the downtown and airport
areas. Mr. Rogers explained that he is unsure.

Committee Member Jones inquired about potential consequences if the City did not
adopt the ARM Overlay by the deadline and asked about other cities' approaches. Mr.
Rogers stated that failing to adopt the overlay could expose the City to lawsuits,
explained that other cities generally applied the state law city-wide, and stated that
Phoenix’s approach applied the overlay to existing high-intensity policy areas.

Committee Member Jones asked about potential changes to the state law. Mr.
Rogers stated he was unaware of any planned changes. Committee Member Crews
stated that she may try to potentially modify the state law to increase the distance a
property must be from single-family homes in order to allow five-story developments.

Committee Member Pimentel stated that the bill was the result of compromise
between major cities, developers, and the League of Cities and Towns. Committee
Member Crews echoed Committee Member Pimentel‘s comments and added that
significant compromise was involved in the bill’s development.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the most challenging parts of process up to
this point. Mr. Rogers noted difficulties in interpreting legislative intent and emphasized
the importance of applying the overlay selectively to protect low-intensity areas.

Committee Member Keyser stated that affordable housing materials might be less
expensive because affordable units do not require luxury amenities and may be smaller
in size.

Committee Member Dina Smith asked for clarification on the state law’s requirements.
Mr. Rogers explained that cities must allow 10% of commercial properties to build up to
five stories, with density equivalent to the highest density allowed within one mile of the
property.

Committee Member Smith asked about the rationale behind the state law and raised
concerns about the cumulative density impact, especially on schools and property
values. Mr. Rogers explained that the state aims to increase housing availability and
address the affordable housing shortage, and stated that limiting the overlay to TOC
areas is an effort to manage density impacts. Committee Member Keyser discussed
the negative consequences of sprawl, including increased infrastructure costs, pollution,
and urban heat effects, and highlighted the role of impact fees for new development.
Committee Member Smith reiterated concerns about potential over-development
impacting property values and local schools.

Committee Member Jak Keyser asked if there is a possibility that the overlay may be
amended in the future. Mr. Rogers explained that it is possible that the City may revisit

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 830
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 22, 2024

the ARM Overlay and explained that Proposition 207 makes it easier to grant changes
than to take them away.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the possibility of tabling the discussion. Mr.
Rogers explained that the text amendment will be heard by the City Council before the
next Alhambra VPC meeting.

Committee Member David Krietor expressed his support and stated that he would
second a motion.

Committee Member Crews thanked Committee Member Smith for her comments and
emphasized that the goal of the state law is to encourage greater density and provide
more housing options for everyone. Committee Member Crews described the urgency
of the situation, explained that the City is experiencing a significant population increase
and a housing shortage, and expressed appreciation for how the City is implementing
the state law through the overlay. Committee Member Crews explained that state laws
can change, stated that the current measures are a temporary solution, and
emphasizing the need to explore more comprehensive solutions. Committee Member
Smith cautioned that sometimes temporary solutions can become problematic.
Committee Member Crews explained that failing to act will result in more families facing
homelessness. Committee Member Smith expressed concern that new housing is too
expensive, and that young people are struggling to afford housing. Committee Member
Crews explained that unless the government steps in to subsidize housing and increase
taxes, negotiations with developers will be necessary to find workable solutions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Jak Keyser made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-
Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member David Krietor seconded the
motion.

VOTE
11-2, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members Crews, Farina, Harris, Keyser, Krietor, Owens,
Pimentel, Sanchez, Shultz, Camp, and DeGraffenreid in favor and Committee Members
Jones and Smith opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 831
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2024
Proposal Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the proposed text
amendment, which is a response to State Bill 2297, which mandates the development
of multifamily use in areas previously lacking such opportunities. Mr. Roanhorse stated
updating the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to evaluate and enhance the
zoning framework, focusing on areas already suited for multifamily development. Mr.
Roanhorse expressed that the amendment encourages the redevelopment of existing
commercial properties for multifamily purposes where appropriate and not all
commercial properties are suitable for multifamily use, so a detailed analysis has been
conducted to determine suitability. Mr. Roanhorse summarized the proposed changes in
the text amendment which include definitions of affordable housing, replacing the H-R1
Zoning District with a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District, and
revisions the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. Mr. Roanhorse stated the process will
evolve gradually and will primarily impact a specific subset of areas within the city and
the focus of the amendment is on adaptive reuse for multifamily development within
designated transit-oriented communities. Mr. Roanhorse said the proposed changes are
designed to support areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, such as transit
systems and established commercial districts. Mr. Roanhorse said the new overlay

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
Page 2

areas will affect locations within transit-oriented communities, particularly around
Central Avenue and other key transit routes. Mr. Roanhorse stated the Adaptive Reuse
Multifamily (ARM) overlay district will be applied to designated commercial districts (R-5,
C-1, C-2, and C-3) that already have adaptive reuse programs and will enable the
conversion of any nonresidential building within the designated areas into multifamily
housing. Mr. Roanhorse displayed a map of the transit-oriented area and noted the
intent of these amendments is to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of zoning
regulations in supporting adaptive reuse and multifamily development in transit-oriented
areas that will increase in residential density while leveraging existing infrastructure and
transit options. Mr. Roanhorse stated the presentation provided is for information only
and it will come before the committee next month for action.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Williams asked if the areas impacted by the text amendment in
Camelback East are just around the airport. Mr. Roanhorse responded noting the
areas along 50th Street and Van Buren area are exempt due to their proximity to the
airport.

Vice Chair Fischbach asked what is the definition of low-income housing and
moderate income when it comes to housing. Committee Member Eichelkraut
responded for low income it is based on federal standards, 80 percent of the area
median income (AMI) and for moderate income is approximately from 80 to 120 percent
of AMI.

Committee Member Eichelkraut asked how would mixed-use development, such as
combining retail on the lower floors with residential units above be addressed with the
proposed changes. Mr. Roanhorse responded the feasibility of mixed-use development
depends on the location and the overlays will allows some flexibility and the Planning
and Development Department is open to various approaches, but the success of mixed-
use projects will vary. Committee Member Eichelkraut stated it was disappointing the
Gateway area and 50th Street areas were excluded because these areas need more
housing. Mr. Roanhorse responded that one of the main issues was the proximity to
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.

Committee Member Paceley asked since the proposed text amendment was driven by
changes from the State Legislature does this impact Plan Phoenix which will be on the
November ballot. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there would be no impacts because
the proposed amendments took into consideration the city’s current activities.
Committee Member Paceley stated the text amendment should be good with the city’s
residents.

Committee Member Abbott asked about the housing inventory and the deadline to
obtain this information and does the county assessor have this information. Mr.
Roanhorse responded this information is being collected and will be an ongoing
process.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 833
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
Page 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESONSE:

NONE.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 834
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
*REVISED November 1, 2024

Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District;
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 16-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting, following a previous discussion. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for
promoting growth in underdeveloped areas and aligns with the state legislative actions
encouraging adaptive reuse, creating a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance
to facilitate such projects. Mr. Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on
the maps to accommodate development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will
support adaptive reuse and multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous
presentations to the committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at
making multifamily and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse
said one key area of concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain
developments without public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use
buildings. Mr. Roanhorse stated additionally, the potential for increased height and
density in transit-oriented communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the
amendments seek to balance these factors with the existing zoning framework.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Committee Member Paceley asked about the 10 percent allocation for affordable and
workforce housing and how would requirements for development be implemented. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that during the review process applicants and developer may
access how to include various housing types. Committee Member Paceley asked if the
Village Planning Committee will see plans and be able to add stipulations for housing
and development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that for rezoning cases that come to the
Committee they may review and provide feedback and if practical include stipulations.

Committee Member Augusta asked if parking would change as a result of this
proposed text amendment considering the implications of previous parking
amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that proposals would still meet the required
parking based on the zoning. Mr. Cam McCutchen, staff, responded that with parking
requirements, instead of maximums the City utilized minimums to provide allowance for
a specific number of parking spaces. Mr. McCutchen stated that in some cases options
like the Walkable Urban Code allow flexibility in different transects to incentivize
measures to reduce automobile parking.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Paceley commented the proposed text amendments are a good
idea to include access to light rail and improve multifamily development and it makes
good sense.

MOTION

Committee Member Paceley motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the
staff recommendation. Committee Member Sharaby seconded the motion.

VOTE

16-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg
Thraen, Garcia, Guevar, Jurayeva, Langmade, Paceley, Schmieder, Sharaby,
Whitesell, Williams, Fischbach and Swart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 836
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Christopher DePerro, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the Arizona
Legislature, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily
development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Olivas asked about the requirement for administrative approval
with no public hearings. Mr. DePerro clarified that it is based on the requirement from
state law. Ms. Olivas stated a concern about removing public hearings and the
opportunity for people to give input. Mr. DePerro stated that the allowance is targeted
to Transit Oriented Communities.

Committee Member Starks clarified that this is already state law, and the City must
designate the areas of applicability.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
September 9, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 838
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 21, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 10-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Member Nervis joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 10
members.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation about the proposed text amendment
and companion rezoning case, providing background about HB 2297, a summary of
the provisions of the proposed text, and a description of the area included in the initial
overlay boundaries.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 21, 2024

MOTION
Vice Chair Gaughan made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y, per the
staff recommendation. Darlene Martinez seconded the motion.

VOTE
10-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Ban, Burns, Greenman, Martinez, Nervis, Olivas, Starks,
Vargas, Gaughan, and O’Grady in favor.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 840
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the proposed text
amendment, which is a response to State Bill 2297, which mandates the development
of multifamily use in areas previously lacking such opportunities. Mr. Roanhorse stated
updating the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to evaluate and enhance the
zoning framework, focusing on areas already suited for multifamily development. Mr.
Roanhorse expressed that the amendment encourages the redevelopment of existing
commercial properties for multifamily purposes where appropriate and not all
commercial properties are suitable for multifamily use, so a detailed analysis has been
conducted to determine suitability. Mr. Roanhorse summarized the proposed changes in
the text amendment which include definitions of affordable housing, replacing the H-R1
Zoning District with a new ARM Overlay District, and revisions the TOD-1 and TOD-2
overlay districts. Mr. Roanhorse stated the process will evolve gradually and will
primarily impact a specific subset of areas within the city and the focus of the
amendment is on adaptive reuse for multifamily development within designated transit-
oriented communities. Mr. Roanhorse said the proposed changes are designed to

Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

support areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, such as transit systems and
established commercial districts. Mr. Roanhorse said the new overlay areas will affect
locations within transit-oriented communities, particularly around Central Avenue and
other key transit routes. Mr. Roanhorse stated the ARM overlay district will be applied to
designated commercial districts (R-5, C-1, C-2, and C-3) that already have adaptive
reuse programs and will enable the conversion of any nonresidential building within the
designated areas into multifamily housing. Mr. Roanhorse displayed a map of the
transit-oriented area and noted the intent of these amendments is to enhance the
flexibility and effectiveness of zoning regulations in supporting adaptive reuse and
multifamily development in transit-oriented areas that will increase in residential density
while leveraging existing infrastructure and transit options. Mr. Roanhorse said the
amendment does not supersede requirements of other overlays or planning districts and
it does not eliminate historic preservation approvals, ensuring that historic properties
and characteristics remain protected. Mr. Roanhorse stated the Encanto Village
Planning Committee will vote on this item and then it will proceed to the Planning
Commission in October then to City Council in November.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Matthew Jewett asked about the intended height and density and asked if
the proposed height may not exceed and may not be less than five stories and does this
mean there is a fixed height of exactly five stories. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the
intent of the height is to maintain a minimum of five stories but allow flexibility depending
on the zoning.
Committee Member Warnicke commented that many of the proposed changes are
influenced by the WU Code and there is a standard for three-inch caliper trees, but it
appears that the amendment will allow two-inch caliper trees. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that underlying zoning would remain applicable however, if necessary, the
committee may recommend stipulations for tree sizes if necessary. Committee Member
Warnicke suggested the text amendment should include a requirement for three-inch
caliper trees and this would incorporate the intent of the WU Code and create more
shade. Ms. Tricia Gomes, Planning and Development Department Deputy Director,
responded that the proposed change does not impact the WU Code but with the created
overlay height and density will be deferred to the allowances of the WU Code.
Committee Member Warnicke stated that the text amendment does refer specifically to
a caliper size, and this should be uniformly applied to the new overlay district.
Chair Wagner asked if there have been any inventory or analysis done on applicable
buildings in the R-5, C-2, and C-3 where the overlay district will be to see how many
possible units would be gained. Ms. Gomes responded there was not sufficient time to
conduct a full assessment within each mapped area and the targeted area would be
about 20 percent and the proposal is an opt-in overlay and if there is residential
development 10 percent has to be multifamily which allows development standard

Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

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

None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District;
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-4-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

No member of the public registered to speak in this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting. Mr. Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y
focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for promoting growth in underdeveloped
areas and aligns with the state legislative actions encouraging adaptive reuse, creating
a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance to facilitate such projects. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on the maps to accommodate
development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will support adaptive reuse and
multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous presentations to the
committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at making multifamily
and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse said one key area of
concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain developments without
public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use buildings. Mr. Roanhorse
stated additionally, the potential for increased height and density in transit-oriented
communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the amendments seek to balance
these factors with the existing zoning framework.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 844
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair Wagner commented that House Bill 2297, stipulates that no more than 10
percent of eligible properties within the city can be developed for adaptive reuse. Chair
Wagner stated that the current TOC overlay seems to include over 20 percent of
commercially zoned properties, exceeding the 10 percent cap. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the 10 percent cap does not necessarily apply to every property in the
TOC, as the city has mapped areas where adaptive reuse is appropriate. Mr.
Roanhorse stated the focus is on working within the existing zoning framework,
ensuring consistency with what is already allowed by zoning ordinance. Mr. Roanhorse
stated the amendments will streamline adaptive reuse in areas that can accommodate it
without increasing zoning entitlements, maintaining balance between development and
current zoning laws.

Chair Wagner asked how the City will track commercial properties within the overlay to
ensure compliance with the amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is
currently gathering data on the percentage of commercial properties and their square
footage and are aware of the need to monitor this information for future development.
Mr. Roanhorse stated that in a previous presentation staff explained that exact numbers
are still being collected.

Committee Member George asked whether the committee would be notified about
specific properties or buildings eligible for development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
the committee would be notified of any rezoning cases or changes, and that notices
would still be provided for developments that were by-right. Mr. Roanhorse stated that
notifications would go to neighborhoods and associations when significant changes or
developments were made.

Committee Member Jewett stated there was not clarity regarding height restriction and
reiterated that what he understood in the presentation, and it did not align with what he
was reading in the legislation. Committee Member Jewett stated concern about
buildings being classified as functionally obsolete and noted the potential for
manipulation by neglecting repairs or setting rent prices high enough to keep properties
vacant. Committee Member Jewett stated that properties may be left to deteriorate
intentionally and asked if there were any measures in place to prevent such
manipulation and noted the issue of neglected properties in his neighborhood. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that is a concern and will be a challenging issue and stated the
PDD (Planning and Development Department) is focused on fostering development
potential rather than driving economic disinvestment. Mr. Roanhorse said that the City
can collaborate with departments like Neighborhood Services to address repairs or
underused properties and noted that the City's Economic Development Department has
measures in place to intervene when necessary and some initiative falls on the private
development community. Mr. Roanhorse explained that the text amendment aims to
prevent intentional disinvestment and supports development in appropriate areas,
particularly near transit corridors.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 845
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Chair Wagner expressed frustration that neither the City nor the State have provided
clear answers to important questions that were brought up during the review. Chair
Wagner said that there is a growing need for accessible workforce housing and noted
the limitation of the adaptive reuse program is just 6 percent of the City's land, primarily
around 50 TOD areas. Chair Wagner stated that only 18 percent of service workers live
in the TOD areas, leaving 88 percent of service workers without affordable housing
options near transit locations. Chair Wagner said the City should expand opportunities
for adaptive reuse beyond the current limitations, noting that more affordable housing
options should be available in other areas like Desert Ridge and Camelback East,
rather than restricting it to a small percentage of land near transit areas. Chair Wagner
stated disappointment in the current approach and hoped that the City will make
adjustments by January to better address the housing needs of Phoenix's workforce.
Mr. Roanhorse responded that the overlay does promote the creation of affordable
housing by requiring that 10 percent of units be dedicated to affordable or workforce
housing. Mr. Roanhorse stated the importance of defining affordable and workforce
housing, which has been clarified in the amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the
multifamily overlay and adaptive reuse provisions encourage development in areas near
transit, especially around light rail, while allowing flexibility for developers to adapt
projects to the unique characteristics of those zones. Mr. Roanhorse stated that historic
preservation remains unaffected by these changes.

Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is concern about the complexity of the proposed
changes, particularly in relation to HB 2297, noting that these types of amendments can
be difficult to understand. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that there needs for more
accessible and visual presentations, as well as clearer communication from the City to
help the public understand the details of proposed changes. Vice Chair Rodriguez
stated that staff working on proposals should make them more digestible, particularly for
community members unfamiliar with zoning language. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that
while developers are not mandated to use the adaptive reuse and multifamily overlay,
they must meet the affordability requirements if they choose to participate. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that there are challenges in responding to legislative
requirements while maintaining practical zoning interaction with the public and despite
these challenges public involvement remains crucial, as various committees and
organizations are regularly engaged in the planning and review processes.

Vice Chair Rodriguez expressed frustration with the lack of feedback opportunities
regarding the TOC presentation. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated she walks, bikes, and
uses public transit, and it feel like a dead zone with lack vibrancy around Central
Avenue. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is a need for improvements and the
importance of providing workforce housing close to transit corridors. Vice Chair
Rodriguez said there are challenges faced by service workers and teachers who
deserve to live near where they work but currently do not have sufficient options. Mr.
Roanhorse responded the challenges in providing affordable housing and workforce
opportunities are significant and the City is in the process of expanding opportunities.

Committee Member Doescher stated concern with the current state legislation
affecting affordable housing and the pressing need for housing options near

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 846
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

employment centers, particularly for healthcare workers who often face challenges due
to irregular hours. Committee Member Doescher stated that while some developments
may be located near light rail, this approach does not address the diverse needs of all
residents, especially those with limited housing options. Committee Member Doescher
said it is frustrating that state laws that do not consider local realities, stating that these
mandates could hinder cities' ability to address their unique housing challenges and the
concern that developers might prioritize profit over affordable housing.

Committee Member Warnicke expressed concerns about certain properties within the
TOD area, stating that some should not be designated for five-story buildings.
Committee Member Warnicke said that instead of focusing solely on the light rail
corridor for affordable housing, the city should also consider properties along bus routes
and mass transit lines and this approach would help protect neighborhoods from
changes like large out-of-place buildings and create affordable housing along existing
transit routes.

Chair Wagner stated that the state legislation originally intended to apply the TOD
statewide, but the City of Phoenix chose to focus on 60 percent of its land area. Chair
Wagner said it was disappointing that the City's current approach focuses on expensive
properties along the light rail corridor may not become affordable housing. Chair
Wagner said there might be an opportunity for small developers to convert underutilized
buildings across the entire City, rather than concentrating on a limited area and there is
a need for more meaningful progress and that they have until January to reconsider
their approach.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that when the City initiated the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code, it was a citywide proposal. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there were concerns at the
time, including the potential for overdevelopment in areas not ready for it, which led to
opposition against it. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is some confusion about the
current situation, where there is now interest in focusing citywide development around
transportation, such as the light rail and asked for clarification on the approach now,
comparing it to previous concerns about the broader application of the WU Code. Mr.
Klimek responded that the WU Code was proposed citywide and that it was reviewed
by all 15 Village Planning Committees and stated that many projects have successfully
utilized the code in various areas of the city. Mr. Roanhorse responded that while the
WU Code had been applied successfully in some areas, it was not practical everywhere
and noted it has been adapted in a few projects, driving innovation in development,
particularly in mixed-use areas.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is difficulty in balancing the need for flexibility in
development with protecting neighborhoods from rapid development. Vice Chair
Rodriguez said there were past concerns about certain developments, such as the
Phoenix Country Club, which raised worries about similar projects taking an easier route
for approval and there needs to be better understand with the current perspective on
expanding development citywide, especially focusing on transit corridors. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that some areas are better suited for mixed-use or dense

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 847
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

development, while others may need a more specialized approach and there are many
challenges for future development.

Committee Member Procaccini asked about the potential for expanding development
beyond the current overlay boundaries and whether there are plans or metrics guiding
future development areas. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is planning future
text amendments and noted that the City is trying to be more responsive in addressing
development needs, particularly around transportation hubs and with a focus on
increasing housing options, including single-family and multifamily developments. Mr.
Roanhorse referenced the Housing Phoenix Plan as a guide for future residential
growth.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

STAFF RESPONSE

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

MOTION 1 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

Vice Chair Rodriguez motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff
recommendation.
Committee Member Procaccini seconded the motion.

VOTE 1 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

3-8-2; motion to approve Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation fails with
Committee Members Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in favor; and Committee
Members Doescher, George, Jewett, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and
Wagner opposed; and Cardenas and Kleinman abstaining.

Chair Wagner stated the motion to recommend approval fails with three votes in favor,
eight in opposition and two abstentions.

Chair Wagner asked if there were any further motions.

Committee Member Mahrle stated he would prefer to provide a statement on his vote
so the Planning Commission would be aware of the Village Committee’s intentions. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that Committee Members may comment on their vote if that is
their preference, and it will be noted in the meeting minutes.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 848
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

MOTION 2 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

Committee Member Mahrle motioned to recommend denial of
Z-TA-3-24-Y.
Committee Member Kleinman seconded the motion.

Committee Member George stated that Committee has discussed the text
amendments for an hour and that their vote should count toward an action on the
motion. Chair Wagner responded that the Committee’s vote does have meaning and a
motion to deny the request is before the Committee for action.

Committee Member Doescher stated that access to TOD areas limits access to
workforce residential opportunities.

Committee Member Jewett stated there are inconsistencies in the language and there
remains to be questions about the text amendment.

Committee Member Tedhams stated that development should not be limited to the
area around the light rail and there should be broader opportunities.

Committee Member Warnicke stated that the map may place five story buildings
where they do not belong and limits access for workforce housing.

Chair Wagner stated that the action should apply to the entire City not six percent and
there are discrepancies between HB 2297 and the text amendment.

VOTE 2 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

8-4-1; motioned recommend denial of Z-TA-3-24-Y passes the with Committee
Members Doescher, George, Kleinman, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and
Wagner in favor; and Jewett, Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in opposition; and
Cardenas abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 849
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 17, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section
202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions regarding
affordable housing and related items; replace Chapter 6,
Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-Rise and High
Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and
Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District; and amend Section 662
(Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 and
TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, summarized HB2297 which was approved by the Arizona
Legislature. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that that this would require adaptive reuse of
existing commercial structures and would be implemented for 10 percent of the City’s
existing commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. Mrs. Sanchez Luna emphasized that
the text amendment was in response to the Housing Bill 2297. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted
several issues with the bill included having an inventory of all commercial buildings,
difficulty imposing caps and added that all commercial sites are not appropriate for this
implementation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment would apply to Transit
Oriented Community (TOC) areas which had numerous stakeholder input for higher
density and height and contained 20 percent of all commercial properties. Mrs. Sanchez
Luna noted that Downtown, Gateway, and 50th Street Station TOC areas would not be
applicable due to the proximity to the commercial airport. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that
the overlay would apply to districts which already permit multifamily. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
noted that these developments would be required to provide 10 percent affordable and
workforce housing. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that this does not supersede other
requirements, doesn’t change the zoning classification, does not change permitted uses,
and does not eliminate historic preservation sites. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the
presentation by displaying the timeline for the text amendment and contact information.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 850
Estrella Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Perez asked if the Laveen Village would be hearing an information only
presentation on the text amendment. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the text amendment
would not be presented in Laveen because there are no TOC areas in the Village. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna displayed the TOC map.

Romona Brown asked if the case is expected to go before City Council in November.
Mrs. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the TOC area for Estrella
was located south of the freeway and north of Van Buren Street. Mrs. Brown noted that
she lived within the TOC area. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that it would not be applicable
to single-family zoned properties. Mrs. Brown noted the large property adjacent to Living
Spaces along the freeway. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that that site is zoned PUD and
that includes a narrative with separate development standards. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added
that this text amendment would not apply to the PUD.

Chair Perez asked for confirmation that Chris DePerro would be giving the next
presentation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that she will have to verify. Chair Perez asked for
the timeline. Mrs. Sanchez Luna displayed the timeline. Chair Perez request that if the
committee had any questions before the hearing to reach out to Nayeli Sanchez Luna and
Chris DePerro.

Public Comments:

None.

Staff Response:

None.

Committee Discussion:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 851
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 15, 2024
Request: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District;
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 852
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this request.

Staff Presentation:

Matteo Moric, staff, said the State Law, House Bill 2297, came into place because of
the need for more housing due to the housing crisis. Mr. Moric stated the House Bill
requires certain actions taken prior to January 1, 2025. These include: administrative
permissions for adaptive reuse of existing commercial structures and for conversion of
commercial properties to multi-family use, implementation on up 10% of the City’s
existing commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. Mr. Moric explained the concerns of
the House Bill and Phoenix’s response to mitigate effects of it and try to mesh it with the
City’s efforts to manage development within City limits. Mr. Moric displayed the City’s
Transit Oriented Communities map and noted it does not include the Downtown area
and two areas adjacent to the commercial airport. Mr. Moric explained the City has an
existing Adaptive Reuse program and is mostly compliant with HB 2297. Mr. Moric
stated for the multi-family portion of the House Bill must provide a minimum of 10% of
the dwelling units as low-income (“Affordable”) and/or moderate-income(“Workforce”)
housing. Mr. Moric indicated we selected WU Code T5:5 development standards, which

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 853
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

has unlimited density (so complies with “highest density within one mile” requirement
and 56-foot height provision (so complies with 5-story height provision of the State Law)
with the exception not to exceed two stories when within 100 feet of single-family
residence district. Mr. Moric added that some properties may not be able to apply some
ARM Overlay District provisions if in conflict with HP or other overlay/regulatory plan
requirements. Mr. Moric identified the Village Planning Committees for villages included
in the ARM Overlay district and noted it would be coming back to the Village in October
for a recommendation.

Questions from Committee:

Joe Barba asked if it would apply to all vacant commercial buildings. Mr. Moric said the
overlay would apply in the Transit Oriented Community (TOC) areas, but not in the
airport area or within the Downtown.

Saundra Cole wanted to know the definition of an overlay. Mr. Moric said property
would still have its underlying zoning but an overlay in this instance would allow
additional height and density by right.

Ms. Cole questioned what is considered affordable. Mr. Moric said there are two
definitions as part of this overlay text amendment. Mr. Moric stated Affordable housing
would include not more than 80% of median income and work force housing would be
between 80 to 120% of the median income. Ms. Cole wanted to know if it was 80% of
the entire State or within Maryvale.

Chris DeMarest said lots of the lower income property include utility fees.

Chair Derie asked if the City would own the land. Mr. Moric said this would be mainly
for private property.

Ken DuBose had concerns that developers were coming in with the overlay to get more
incentives. Mr. Dubose asked about if a 55-year-old community were to come in how
the overlay would impact them. Mr. Moric responded that zoning does not cover the
age groups. Mr. DeMarest said probably if have 10% affordable housing you could do
it.

Mr. Moric said you can still apply for different standards if the overlay standards would
not work for a developer.

Chair Derie asked if a furniture warehouse in a TOD area can turn it into a multifamily
project. Mr. Moric said you would have to still meet building codes.

Mr. DePascal said south of the river wants to develop multi-level apartment complexes.
Jennifer Fostino asked if the House Bill allows industrial uses.

Mr. Moric clarified that they wanted to tailor the ARM Overlay towards the light rail
areas. Mr. Barba said if someone wanted to convert commercial into residential they

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 854
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

would need to meet all the codes and they don’t have to, it just gives them the option to
do so.

Warren Norgaard said rather than the law apply to the whole city it would only apply to
the TOC areas.

Mr. Moric said if they had more questions to forward them to him prior to the next
meeting and he provided Chris DePerro’s contact information who he said is the staff
member who is most familiar with this text amendment.

Mr. Barba asked who the main House Bill writers were as he believed they were
Maryvale State Legislators.

Mr. Norgaard asked what the difference is adding the overlay than leaving the law as
existing. Mr. Moric stated State Law was not so straight forward and there potentially
could be 5-story buildings with higher density scattered throughout the city even in
areas which they may not be suited. Mr. Moric noted this overlay would direct this type
of development in an area which may be more suitable for it.

Public Comments:

None.

Staff Response

None.

Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Committee Discussion

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 855
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 9, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum

Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:

None

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 856
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 18, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Chase Hales, staff, presented an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mr.
Hales explained that the main proposal was to create an overlay that would satisfy the
requirements of the recent legislation from the state requiring cities to allow for
adaptive reuse of commercial structures. Mr. Hales stated that the text amendment
would create the Adaptive Reuse Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District, that would apply
to the majority of the pre-existing transit-oriented community districts. Mr. Hales
presented a map that showed all the applicable areas and stated that the reasoning
behind this choice was to concentrate the majority of adaptive reuse projects in not
only places that the City was actively working to increase density, but also because
the existing built infrastructure would support the increase is density. Mr. Hales
finished by sharing the details of the criteria that projects would need to meet in order
to take advantage of the adaptive reuse provisions.

Questions from the Committee:

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 857
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

Committee Member Jaramillo asked that given that the legislation’s intent was to
create opportunities for more affordable housing, why the City was only applying the
overlay to the TOC districts. Committee Member Jaramillo continued stating that he
was afraid that if the City did not effectively implement the requested provisions, the
State would make even stronger pre-emptive laws. Chase Hales, staff, shared that
the timeline for implementation was short, so there was limited time to fully research
and craft a brand new strategy for implementation. Mr. Hales continued stating that
the proposed provisions were also in line with the plans and policies guiding density
and intensity to the light rail corridors.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that there were already incentives such as
opportunity zones and low-income tax credits in the TOC districts and felt that the
proposal would just put more low-income housing in the same areas that were
already building low-income housing. Committee Member Jaramillo stated that the
proposal would miss the opportunity to allow other parts of the city to have the
transformational change that could bring density to where it is also needed.

Public Comments:

None.

Committee Discussion:

Committee Member Krentz stated that the state of Arizona was behind many other
states that required affordable housing to be created with new development.
Committee Member Krentz shared frustration that the overlay would only apply in the
TOC areas, as he felt that the TOC areas were becoming a catch-all for any new
concepts. Committee Member Krentz stated that he still supported the effort and said
it was a “good first step.” Committee Member Krentz shared that he understood that
wide-spread implementation might not be currently palatable but said that in the future
he hoped the overlay would be applied in other areas of the city.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he agreed with Mike Krentz and shared
that the State’s legislation was an opportunity for the City to incentivize affordable
housing throughout the city, not just in the TOC districts. Committee Member
Jaramillo referenced the General Plan, which includes cores throughout the city, and
stated that a direction should be made to have staff look into implementing the ARM
overlay in areas such as the cores when the Committee made its recommendation.
Chase Hales stated that there was already work being done by staff to research new
potential cores and that it would certainly be feasible to have such a work program
implemented.

Committee Member O’Hara stated that there were certainly folks who would fight
against the implementation in other parts of the city as a way to fight against diversity
in their area, which he disagreed with entirely, but that there were other perspectives
to look at housing from, one of them being services. Committee Member O’Hara
referred to the State’s action to remove rental tax, which effective reduced budget
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 858
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

funds for services. Committee Member O’Hara added that working as a fire fighter, he
was familiar with the strain already placed on Phoenix’s fire protection system.
Committee Member O’Hara shared that he appreciated the slow conservative
implementation of the overlay and stated that the broad implementation of the overlay
would permit the potential to have concentrations of demand for services pop up,
straining the City further.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he saw the State legislation as a way for
the City to argue against the potential NIMBY (not in my backyard) criticisms, as it will
be required of the City to implement the requirements somewhere.

Committee Member Matthews asked if the City Council could publicly identify next
steps when they make their action at their Formal Meeting. Mr. Hales stated he was
not sure what that would look like but said that the Committee could certainly give
direction in their recommendation.

Committee Member Barraza asked how the proposal compared to the actions other
cities were taking. Mr. Hales stated that he was not aware of actions being taken by
neighboring cities, but that Chris DePerro, the staff member who wrote the staff
report, would likely know more.

Committee Member Adams asked if there were any repercussions if the City did not
comply with the State’s mandate. Vice Chair Matthews stated that the City would
likely be open to civil lawsuits for negligence from property owners wanting to take
advantage of the State’s mandated provisions.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 859
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 16, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Stockham, staff, provided a brief presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment Z-TA-3-24 and companion case Z-136-24-Y, sharing elements of the
legislation (HB 2297) and the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions, and the
hearing schedule for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 860
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews shared his understanding of the proposal and the
timeline for compliance with state law and shared a desire to recommend approval of
the proposal and to expand the applicability to other areas, such as Village Cores, in the
future.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo added that this is an opportunity to expand it to
other areas now.

Committee Member Arick O’Hara stated that he agreed with Committee Member
Jaramillo but not on the deadline to push this through by January. Committee Member
O’Hara stated that with a deadline to comply by January, the committee could vote no
without direction, and shared that when the committee makes a recommendation with
direction, there is a concern that the committee’s direction could not be listened to by
other hearing bodies. Committee Member O’Hara shared that he does not disagree with
the proposal but disagrees with the way it is being done and that he did not want to limit
it to an area now and expand it later.

Committee Member Mike Krentz shared that state law will be effective in January, this
proposal will serve as a template to expand it to other areas, and reminded the
committee of a previous proposal to expand the Walkable Urban Code applicability area
citywide which was met with opposition.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that City Council will take action before January,
and that he would also like to add direction regarding tracking and reporting the use of
the overlay provisions back to the Village Planning Committees.

Committee Member Joshua Carmona asked if other hearing bodies take into
consideration the direction provided by Village Planning Committees.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews replied that from a Planning Commissioner perspective,
he reads the Village Planning Committee recommendations and if, for example, a
Village Planning Committee recommended denial of a case unanimously, he will take a
close look at the discussion, and that Village Planning Committee recommendations
could impact the Planning Commission recommendation.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo stated he would also like to add direction to
include Village Cores, along the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, and other major
transportation corridors.

MOTION – Z-TA-3-24-Y
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-7
with direction that the applicability area be expanded in the future to include the Bus
Rapid Transit line, Village Cores, and other transportation corridors.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews requested a friendly amendment to include direction that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 861
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

the Planning and Development Department track how often the overlay provisions are
being used and report back to the Village Planning Committees. Vice Chair Matthews
also suggested that the direction go on the companion case, Z-136-24-Y, which maps
the boundaries of the overlay. Committee Member Krentz accepted the friendly
amendment and the suggestion that direction be provided on Z-136-24-Y and restated
the motion.

MOTION – Z-TA-3-24-Y
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y
per the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Joshua Matthews seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-3-24-Y
13-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passed; with Committee Members Alauria, Carmona, Garbarino, Jaramillo, Krentz,
Larson, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Pamperin, Sommacampagna, Matthews and
Fogelson in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 862
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the Arizona
Legislature, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily
development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked about where the provisions of the bill would
apply. Mr. Rogers stated that the bill is creating an overlay zone over the existing Transit
Oriented Communities (TOC) areas and explained how the overlay makes site review
more feasible.

Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on whether the text amendment would
permit T5:5 transect development standards only within the Affordable Residential
Overlay (ARM). Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Marchuk's question.

Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III inquired about what percentage of the Area Median
Income (AMI) qualifies as affordable and workforce housing. Committee Member

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 863
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
September 10, 2024

Marcia Busching stated that affordable housing is considered to be 80% of AMI, while
workforce housing is at 120% of AMI.

Chair Marchuk asked whether the text amendment would apply to new builds or only to
adaptive reuse. Mr. Rogers explained that the bill has two parts regarding adaptive reuse
and multifamily developments, stated adaptive reuse must occur within an existing
building, and explained multifamily developments can be new builds.

Committee Member Greg Brownell raised concerns about practical applications and
asked if adding a second story to R1-6 property or adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) would change the process under the new provisions. Mr. Rogers stated that if the
property is not in the overlay, the provisions do not apply and explained that ADUs are
legal throughout the City of Phoenix.

Committee Member Gene Holmerud asked if the utilities in these areas could support
the additional development. Mr. Rogers explained that TOC areas are designed to
support more intense development.

Chair Marchuk asked about the differences between the ARM overlay and the TOC
map. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM overlay excludes downtown and the areas near
the airport.

Chair Marchuk inquired if all of this would be handled administratively, and whether
there would be a reduction in rezoning cases in these areas. Mr. Rogers stated that it is
a possibility, but some developers may opt not to provide affordable housing. Committee
Member Busching added that the overlay only allows multifamily development under the
T5:5 standards, while other uses would still require going through the rezoning process.

Committee Member Brownell asked if there is a way to track how many multifamily
permits are being pulled. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have metrics but explained
that the "My Community Map" is available online and displays where permits are being
pulled.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 8, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 12-0

STAFF PRESENTATION

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24 and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the overlay’s interaction with other policy plans, the
proposed allowances for multifamily development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline
for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Tamala Daniels inquired about the locations of the properties
presented as examples of sites that could be developed under the ARM Overlay. Mr.
Rogers stated that the presented example properties are not in South Mountain and
explained he does not know the exact locations.

Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on conflicts with the ARM Overlay and the
Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD). Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM Overlay
allows commercial properties to develop under the Walkable Urban (WU) Code Transect
T5:5 standards and explained the T5:5 maximum setback is less that the BAOD
minimum setback. Mr. Rogers explained that work had been done on an amendment to
the BAOD in the past but had never gone to City Council for approval. Committee

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 865
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 10, 2024

Member T. Daniels asked for clarification on why the amendment to the BAOD was not
completed in the past and stated that there had been a Text Amendment (TA) to expand
the WU Code’s applicability area. Mr. Rogers explained that he was not aware of the
specific reasons why the BAOD amendment was not completed and explained that the
TA to expand the WU Code’s applicability area ended up failing.

Committee Member Marcia Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD, stated that
she initiated the original effort to amend the BAOD, and explained that staff had informed
her that other TAs would need to occur before the BAOD text amendment, resulting in
the effort being paused. Committee Member Busching stated it is a good idea to include
initialization of the BAOD amendment in the motion.

Committee Member T. Daniels expressed confusion and frustration that the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) plan had been worked on for two years, but the BAOD
conflicts had not been addressed, and explained that the City had tried to put forth a
separate TA to reduce parking requirements for multifamily developments, but WU
Code already addresses reduced parking requirements. Mr. Rogers explained that for
staff to continue working on the BAOD amendment, the committee would need to
include a recommendation to amend the BAOD. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not
have information regarding the order in which TAs are brought to the VPC, explained
that House Bill 2297 requires municipalities to implement new rules by the beginning of
next year, and stated the ARM Overlay brought renewed attention to the conflicts with
the BAOD.

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on whether resolving the
conflicts between the BAOD and the WU Code would require the WU Code to
supersede the BAOD. Committee Member Busching stated that the BAOD
boundaries could be amended to end at 7th Street.

Chair Marchuk asked for clarification on what process would be triggered if the
committee recommended amending the BAOD. Mr. Rogers explained that such a
recommendation would trigger an additional Text Amendment.

Committee Member T. Daniels discussed the area within the South Central TOD
Community Plan and the BAOD and asked about the boundaries of the BAOD.
Committee Member Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD. Mr. Rogers
explained that the City generally supports rezonings to the WU Code only if the site is
within a TOD plan area, and clarified that sites governed by the WU Code within the
BAOD cannot functionally develop due to conflicting regulations.

Chair Marchuk inquired whether the committee would discuss the matter next month.
Mr. Rogers stated that he would need to consult with his team to determine a timeline
moving forward.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 10, 2024

Committee Member Brownell suggested that the committee could also make a motion
to modify the ARM Overlay to address the conflicts. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM
Overlay is not likely to change much and a modification of the BAOD would likely need
to be an amendment to the BAOD. Committee Member Brownell asked for confirmation
that, if there was an R1-6 property where a second story was being added, this process
would not be impacted. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the ARM Overlay will not change the
process of permitting on an R1-6 property.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-
TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation with direction for staff to review the conflicts
between the Baseline Area Overlay District, the WU Code, and the ARM Overlay district
and that the Baseline Overlay District be modified to eliminate any conflicts. Committee
Member Emma Viera seconded the motion.

VOTE
12-0, motion to recommend approval of motion to approve Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff
recommendation with direction for staff to review the conflicts between the Baseline
Area Overlay District, the WU Code, and the ARM Overlay district and that the Baseline
Overlay District be modified to eliminate any conflicts passed with Committee Members
Alvarez, Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels,
Shepard, Viera, Greathouse, and Marchuk in favor.

Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing and
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-136-24-Y - Various Parcels
within the Area Generally Bounded by Peoria Avenue on the North, State
Route 51 on the East, South Mountain Avenue on the South, and 83rd Avenue
on the West (Ordinance G-7321) - Citywide

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-136-24-Y and rezone the area from various underlying zoning districts
to various underlying zoning districts with the Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family
Overlay District to map boundaries for the Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family Overlay
District (Z-TA-3-24-Y). This is a companion case and must be heard following Z-TA-
3-24-Y.

Summary
Current Zoning: Various Underlying Zoning Districts
Proposed Zoning: Various Underlying Zoning Districts with the Adaptive Reuse and
Multi-Family Overlay District
Acreage: 20,373.69
Proposed Use: Map boundaries for the Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family Overlay
District (Z-TA-3-24-Y)

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval (Attachment B).
VPC Action: Eight Village Planning Committees (VPCs) considered the request.
Four VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; One VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; One VPC
recommended denial; and Two VPCs did not have quorum, as reflected in
Attachment C.
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, for
information only.
PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on November

7, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.

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 CODE OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, BY AMENDING
SECTION 601, THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN (CASE Z-136-24-Y) TO ADD THE
ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
____________

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2024, the City of Phoenix Planning Commission,

in compliance with the requirements of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section

506, initiated a request of approximately 20,373.69 acres generally bounded by Peoria

Avenue on the north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain Avenue on the south,

and 83rd Avenue on the west; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.04, the Planning Commission,

held a public hearing on November 7, 2024, and at this hearing recommended that the

modified; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council, at their regularly scheduled meeting held on

November 13, 2024, has determined that, in accordance with A.R.S. § 9-462.01.F, this

rezoning request, with the appropriate site specific requirements provided in Section 2,

is consistent with and conforms to the General Plan, will conserve and promote the

public health, safety and general welfare, and should be approved, subject to the

conditions herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1: The zoning of those portions generally bounded by Peoria

Avenue on the north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain Avenue on the south,

and 83rd Avenue on the west, is hereby changed from various underlying zoning

districts and overlay districts to various underlying zoning districts and overlay districts

with Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District and that 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 “A”.

SECTION 2: The specific nature of the subject property and of the

rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-136-24-Y, on file with the

Planning and Development Department.

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 13th day of November,

2024.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:
_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)

ATTACHMENT B

*REVISED
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-3-24-Y *and Z-136-24-Y
September 24, 2024

Application Nos. Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions regarding affordable
housing and related items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District –
High-Rise and High Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multi-
family (ARM) Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the provision of the
TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts; and to establish the boundary of the Adaptive
Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the language
in Exhibit A, and Z-136-24-Y be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

BACKGROUND
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2297, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session (2024) which modified the Arizona Revised Statutes to
require municipalities to allow 1) adaptive reuse of existing, “economically and
functionally obsolete” commercial buildings by non-residential uses by right, and 2)
multi-family conversion of existing commercial sites by right. Both permissions are
required in “not more than 10% of the total existing commercial, office or mixed use
buildings within the municipality.” However, in order to qualify for these by-right
permissions, a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units provided must be set aside for
low-income (“Affordable”) or moderate-income (“Workforce”) housing for a minimum of
20 years after initial occupation, in addition to meeting other criteria outlined in the bill.

The requirements of HB 2297 require that zoning and other regulations be updated to
comply no later than January 1, 2025.

PURPOSE
In terms of non-residential adaptive reuse, the City of Phoenix has an existing robust
program, and few changes are required. The City also has existing permissions for
conversions of commercially zoned properties to multi-family developments, and

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 2

generally it is the development standards (setbacks, height, density, etc.) which require
revisions due to HB 2297. In particular, the bill requires greater height and dwelling unit
density than currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.

PROPOSAL
Staff recommends an overlay district over the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)
area, with exceptions for Downtown Code and WU Code zoned properties, which
already have existing permissions for greater height and density. The TOC area was
chosen because it had been identified by prior studies as the area where such height
and development density should be encouraged. The Gateway TOC and 50th Street
Station Areas have been exempted since the bill does not permit inclusion of areas in
close proximity to a commercial airport. A map of the Transit-Oriented Communities is
provided below.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM)

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 3

Overlay District, and 3) revision of the overlapping TOD-1 and TOD-2 Overlay District
requirements so as not to conflict with the new regulations.

1. New and Revised Definitions

HB 2297 requires that any multi-family development which develops under the
provisions of the bill provide a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units provided as
low- or moderate-income housing. The City of Phoenix typically uses different
terms: “Affordable Housing” as low-income housing, which is for residents earning
up to 80% of the area median income; and “Workforce Housing”, which is for
residents earning from 80% to 120% of the area median income. These definitions
are proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance, although “Affordable Housing” is
already existing and is slightly revised for consistency.

HB 2297 also includes a requirement that an existing commercial building be
“economically and functionally obsolete” in order to qualify for the provisions
regarding adaptive reuse. The bill provides the definition, which in turn is proposed
to be added to the Zoning Ordinance.

2. Creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-family (ARM) Overlay
District

The existing Section 632, High-Rise H-R1 District – High-Rise and High Density
District, applied only to the area long-since rezoned as Downtown Code (Chapter 12
of the Zoning Ordinance) and now is an archaic section of the Zoning Ordinance.
This text amendment proposes to remove it and use its place in the Zoning
Ordinance for the new ARM Overlay District.

HB 2297 requires that the City designate “not more than 10% of the total existing
commercial, office, or mixed use buildings within the municipality” for adaptive reuse
and/or multi-family conversion, by right (i.e. no public hearings). However, there are
eligibility criteria provided in the bill, which in turn are provided in the standards of
Section 632.

Objective Standards
A municipality must require the following objective standards, but no more, to qualify
for the by-right permissions of HB 2297:
• An administrative site plan review process.
• Determination of adequate public water and sewer to serve the site.
• Compliance with all applicable building construction and fire codes.
• Determination that any existing on-site building is “economically and
functionally obsolete”.
• A minimum parcel size of one acre, and a maximum size of 20 acres.

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 4

• Requirement that a minimum of 10% of the provided dwelling units are either
low- and/or moderate-income housing (affordable and/or workforce housing).

Height and Density
In addition to the Objective Standards, by-right multi-family development has
requirements regarding permitted height and density:

• Height may not exceed (but also not be less than) five stories, except where
within 100 feet of single-family zoned properties, where the height may be
limited to two stories.
• Density shall be equal to the highest allowable density within one mile of the
building to be redeveloped.

Exemptions
HB 2297 also includes exemptions for properties adjacent to an FAA-licensed
airport, and properties designated as historic. Section 632 is written to exempt HP
and HP-L designated properties, and does not include the TOC areas directly to the
north and adjacent to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.

Implementation within Transit-Oriented Communities
The new Section 632 includes the objective standards, height and density
requirements, and exemptions as stated in HB 2297. The height and density
provision will be discussed in more detail, as it is these provisions which led staff to
suggest an overlay over the City’s designated Transit-Oriented Communities.

The height requirement of HB 2297—five stories—is permitted within the Walkable
Urban Code, starting with the T5:5 transect. Therefore, staff have proposed that
development qualifying for use of the ARM overlay be permitted to developed in
accordance with Chapter 13 (WU Code), T5:5 development standards.

The density requirement of HB 2297 is quite permissive, especially since adjacent
portions of Downtown and properties zoned Walkable Urban Code have unrestricted
(unlimited) density. Since that could lead to properties within a one-mile radius of a
site developed under the provisions of HB 2297 also being allowed unlimited
density, staff propose to allow unlimited density by right for projects subject to these
regulations, but only in areas already identified for unrestricted density and future
conversion to Walkable Urban Code—the Transit-Oriented Communities.

Permitted Uses
The ARM Overlay District does not add or prohibit any additional uses; it simply
allows multi-family development and adaptive reuse to develop with more density
and intensity, by right, within districts which already permit it. The proposed ARM
Overlay District would not remove the underlying zoning classifications; rather, it
would “overlay” the underlying zoning districts. A property currently zoned “C-2 HRI”
would become “C-2 HRI ARMOD” if approved as proposed.

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 5

As an example, C-2 already permits multi-family development, but only to a
maximum height of four stories, and with a maximum density of approximately 15
dwelling units per acre. A property located within the ARM Overlay District could
choose to develop up to 5 stories, with no density limitations, but with the overlay
requirement of 10% affordable and/or workforce housing, in addition to the other
objective standards for applicability, such as lot size. However, the overlay is
proposed to be permissive: a developer could still choose to develop per the
existing zoning requirements, but with none of the additional height or density
provisions of the ARM Overlay District.

Qualifying Buildings/Sites
As stated earlier, HB 2297 requires that the City allow by-right adaptive reuse and/or
multi-family development on “not more than 10% of the total existing commercial,
office, or mixed use buildings within the municipality.” Staff have proposed an area
appropriate for such development, but also with a high concentration of these types
of uses and buildings. While the proposed area of the ARM Overlay District
comprises 6.1% of the City’s total land area, it includes more than 20% of the
properties within the City zoned R-5, C-1, C-2, and C-3, which are the primary
districts where commercial, office, and mixed use buildings are permitted. The
provisions for adaptive reuse may also be applied on additional properties zoned for
office park and light industrial uses (Commerce Park, A-1, and A-2) within the ARM
Overlay District.

3. TOD-1 and TOD-2 Overlay District and other conflicts with ARM Overlay
District requirements.

The Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1) and the Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2) are existing overlay districts
applied along the Valley Metro Light Rail corridor and will overlap with much of the
area proposed for the ARM Overlay District. Staff propose that for projects
developing under the provisions of the ARM Overlay District—use of Chapter 13,
Walkable Urban Code standards—would not also be subject to the development
standards of TOD-1 or TOD-2. This is consistent with properties rezoned to
Walkable Urban Code, which have the TOD overlay removed when rezoning to WU
Code.

The ARM Overlay District development standards would not override any other
existing special planning areas having adopted regulatory plans, such as
neighborhood plans, Specific Plans, or other overlay districts. Rather, the ARM
Overlay District provisions can be applied when they do not conflict with any other
regulatory standards of such special planning areas.

Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 6

*ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE Z-136-24-Y
Case Z-136-24-Y has been created to officially establish the zoning boundary of the
proposed ARM Overlay District over the Transit Oriented Communities, with the
exceptions as described above. The map of the proposed boundary is attached as
Exhibit B.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District, comprising a
large portion of the City’s Transit-Oriented Communities, is the most appropriate location
for the by-right adaptive reuse and multi-family redevelopment entitlements required by
HB 2297, not only because of the proximity to mass transit and prior studies leading to
the designation of the TOC, but also because the area encompasses a large portion of
the City’s existing commercial, office, and mixed use buildings.

Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the language in Exhibit A, and Z-136-
24-Y be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

Writer
C. DePerro
September 24, 2024

Exhibits

A. Proposed Language
B. Sketch Map / Proposed Boundary

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 7

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as
follows:
***
ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE: COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE
BUILDING(S) ON A SITE THAT ARE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR OR HAVE A FIFTY
PERCENT VACANCY IN THE TOTAL LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.
***
Affordable Housing, AFFORDABLE: Residential or mixed-use development providing
HUD or other assisted low-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.

HOUSING, WORKFORCE: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED 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 OF AT LEAST 80 PERCENT
AND UP TO 120 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

***

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 8

Section 632. High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High Density District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High
Density District) to strike everything, and replace with the following text:

SECTION 632. ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING
REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10, AS
FOLLOWS:

1. PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE NON-
RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS.

2. ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT ON EXISTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN THIS SECTION.

B. APPLICABILITY. THIS OVERLAY APPLIES TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE
ADOPTED TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES, PER THE MAP PROVIDED
BELOW, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

1. NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION,
AS FOLLOWS:

a. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP OR HP-L.

b. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

2. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN EITHER THE
GATEWAY TOC OR THE 50TH STREET STATION AREA.

3. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE PER
CHAPTER 12.

4. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED WALKABLE URBAN CODE
PER CHAPTER 13.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 9

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 10

C. CONFLICTS.

1. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC PLAN,
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, OR SIMILAR REGULATORY PLAN ADOPTED
BY COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLY
ONLY WHEN THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ADOPTED
REGULATORY PLANS.

2. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS (SECTIONS 662 AND
663, RESPECTIVELY), THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS DO NOT
APPLY WHEN CHAPTER 13 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE
UTILIZED FOR A DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
632.H.2.b.

D. VARIANCES. A PROVISION OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY BE MODIFIED
THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS DISCUSSED IN SECTION 307, BUT
ONLY WHEN THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT CAUSE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.

E. PERMITTED USES. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICTS EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

F. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS
APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
OVERLAY DISTRICT:

1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507 IS REQUIRED.

a. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL EXPLICITLY STATE WHICH, IF
ANY, OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE TO
BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.

2. ADEQUATE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS DETERMINED
BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 11

3. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE
CODES IS REQUIRED.

4. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE
MUST BE ECONOMICALLY OR FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, AS
DEMONSTRATED TO AND APPROVED BY PDD.

5. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT (APPROVED TOGETHER ON ONE SITE PLAN), AND
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IS AT
LEAST ONE NET ACRE BUT DOES NOT EXCEED 20 NET ACRES.

G. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE
OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITHIN
THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION
F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. AUTOMOBILE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

2. SETBACKS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS
GREATER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE
PROPOSED USE MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EXISTING
SETBACK SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED BY
RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

b. IF THE PROPOSED USE HAS SPACING OR SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING,
THOSE PROVISIONS STILL APPLY.

3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 12

a. IF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS LESS
THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE PROPOSED USE
MAY BE PROVIDED AT ANY HEIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING
BUILDING SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS A USE
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

b. ANY NEW BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT
PROVISIONS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

H. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY
AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN
ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE SHALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-5 (SECTION 618), R-4A (SECTION 619),
C-1 (SECTION 622), C-2 (SECTION 623), OR C-3 (SECTION 624).

2. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ONLY ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING (a OR b):

a. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, OR

b. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 13, WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, TRANSECT T5:5, WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) DENSITY IS NOT RESTRICTED.

(2) HEIGHT IS RESTRICTED TO FIVE STORIES AND 56 FEET
IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT THAT FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 13

(3) A MINIMUM OF TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
AND/OR WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR A MINIMUM TERM
OF TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
CITY’S HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

3. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS STATED IN THIS SECTION, IN ADDITION TO ALL NON-
RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH USES
WITHIN THE T5:5 TRANSECT. HOWEVER, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE
UNDERLYING ZONING ALSO PERMITS THE PROPOSED NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES.

I. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—OTHER. A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER SUBSECTION G OR SUBSECTION H ABOVE MUST
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
UNDERLYING ZONING FOR THE SITE.

***

Section 662. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1).
Amend Chapter 6, Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1)) to amend as follows:

Section 662. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1).

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-1) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 14

C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-1 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-1 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

Section 663. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-2).
Amend Chapter 6, Section 663 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to amend as follows:

Section 663. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2).

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-2) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-2 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 15

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-2 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

7TH S T

TATUM BLV D
SHEA BLVD

HATCHER RD

E
NORTHERN AV

GLENDALE AVE v
w 51

43RD AVE
LI N OLN DR
v
w
60 C
BETHANY HOME RD

35TH AVE 27TH AVE
MISSOURI AVE

95TH AVE
12TH ST
CAMELBACK RD

83RD AVE INDIAN SCHOOL RD 16TH ST

32ND ST
91ST AVE 15TH AVE
v
w
101 GR
D
AN OSBORN RD
THOMAS RD
AV
E 40TH ST

§
¨
¦ 24TH ST 44TH ST 52ND ST
1ST AVE
w
v

VAN BUREN ST

75TH AVE 67TH AVE
59TH AVE
BUCKEYE RD §
¨
¦
SKY H ARBOR BLVD

81ST AVE
MOHAVE ST

107TH AVE 99TH AVE 51ST AVE
LOWER BUCKEYE RD SITY DR

63RD AVE
UN
v
w
19TH AVE
IVE 143
BROADWAY RD R

48TH ST
SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

DOBBINS RD

¯ Miles Z-136-24
0 1.25 2.5 5

VILLAGE: Various
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Various

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
FROM: Various Zoning Districts
DATE:
9/25/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-136-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP TO: Various Underlying Zoning Districts with the
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D8, F3-F9, G3-9,H7-H8, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family Overlay District
20373.69 Acres Various I7, J6-J7, K6-K7

MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 890
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-136-24\Z-136-24.aprx
ATTACHMENT C
Z-136-24-Y: Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Village Recommendation Recommendations Vote
Date
Alhambra 10/22/24 Approval, per the staff 11-2
recommendation
Camelback 10/1/24 Approval, per the staff 16-0
East recommendation
Central City 10/21/24 Approval, per the staff 10-0
recommendation
Encanto 10/7/24 Denial 8-4-1
Estrella 10/15/24 No quorum n/a
Maryvale 10/9/24 No quorum n/a
North 10/16/24 Approval, per the staff 13-0
Mountain recommendation, with direction
South 10/8/24 Approval, per the staff 12-0
Mountain recommendation

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 22, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on
the north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 11-2

VPC DISCUSSION

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily development
and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Charles Jones asked about the mile distance requirement. Mr.
Rogers explained that state law requires cities to allow 10% of their commercial areas
to develop up to five stories with densities equivalent to the highest zoning district within
one mile of the subject property. Mr. Rogers stated that the City of Phoenix applied this
by allowing sites within existing Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) to develop
according to Walkable Urban (WU) Code T5:5 standards, permitting unlimited density
and five-story buildings.

Committee Member Martin Shultz stated that this policy originated from state law and
questioned whether cities should control zoning or if state involvement is appropriate.
Committee Member Shultz stated that the motivation behind some legislation is to
create challenges for transit-oriented development. Mr. Rogers discussed the balance
of benefits and risks in the relationship between city zoning authority and state
regulations. Committee Member Shultz explained that determining zoning jurisdiction is
complex and raised the importance of regional planning and described the politics that
opposed the Capitol Mall light rail expansion.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y
October 22, 2024

Committee Member Quanta Crews expressed support for how Phoenix applied the
state law through an overlay, explained she supported the law as a state legislator due
to its potential to create affordable housing, and asked about the public engagement
process. Mr. Rogers clarified that the application of the ARM Overlay will be an
administrative process that does not require public hearings, stated that the overlay will
not alter existing rezoning procedures, and reiterated that the ARM Overlay applies
within established high-intensity policy areas.

Committee Member Marshall Pimentel highlighted the benefit of affordable housing
through this process, stated that the overlay is a small but positive step, and explained
that Arizona’s prohibition on mandatory inclusionary housing presents barriers.

Committee Member David Krietor raised concerns about the proposed five-story
allowance, stated that some commercial properties in the ARM Overlay are adjacent to
single-family homes, and described previously conflicts over height within the Alhambra
Village. Mr. Rogers explained that developments within 100 feet of single-family zoning
are limited to two stories.

Committee Member Jones requested clarification on the ARM Overlay boundaries.
Mr. Rogers presented the ARM Overlay boundaries.

Committee Member Jones asked if affordable housing was mandatory for projects
utilizing the ARM Overlay and asked about funding. Mr. Rogers confirmed that
affordable housing is required for multifamily developed under the ARM Overlay, stated
that the affordable housing is funded by developers, and explained that developers
could choose to rezone if they wish to avoid providing affordable housing.

Committee Member Crews questioned the appropriate distance requirement for the
two-story height limitation near single-family zones and whether 300 feet would be more
appropriate. Committee Member Krietor described Alhambra’s support for affordable
housing, explained conflicts over height near single-family areas, and stated that
overlay may lead to potential disputes regarding height. Committee Member Jones
explained that step-downs are sometimes required and stated that determining an
optimal distance from single family to limit the height is challenging.

Committee Member John Owens asked whether the presentation’s reference to 20%
of commercial areas being within ARM Overlay included the downtown and airport
areas. Mr. Rogers explained that he is unsure.

Committee Member Jones inquired about potential consequences if the City did not
adopt the ARM Overlay by the deadline and asked about other cities' approaches. Mr.
Rogers stated that failing to adopt the overlay could expose the City to lawsuits,
explained that other cities generally applied the state law city-wide, and stated that
Phoenix’s approach applied the overlay to existing high-intensity policy areas.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 893
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y
October 22, 2024

Committee Member Jones asked about potential changes to the state law. Mr.
Rogers stated he was unaware of any planned changes. Committee Member Crews
stated that she may try to potentially modify the state law to increase the distance a
property must be from single-family homes in order to allow five-story developments.

Committee Member Pimentel stated that the bill was the result of compromise
between major cities, developers, and the League of Cities and Towns. Committee
Member Crews echoed Committee Member Pimentel‘s comments and added that
significant compromise was involved in the bill’s development.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the most challenging parts of process up to
this point. Mr. Rogers noted difficulties in interpreting legislative intent and emphasized
the importance of applying the overlay selectively to protect low-intensity areas.

Committee Member Keyser stated that affordable housing materials might be less
expensive because affordable units do not require luxury amenities and may be smaller
in size.

Committee Member Dina Smith asked for clarification on the state law’s requirements.
Mr. Rogers explained that cities must allow 10% of commercial properties to build up to
five stories, with density equivalent to the highest density allowed within one mile of the
property.

Committee Member Smith asked about the rationale behind the state law and raised
concerns about the cumulative density impact, especially on schools and property
values. Mr. Rogers explained that the state aims to increase housing availability and
address the affordable housing shortage, and stated that limiting the overlay to TOC
areas is an effort to manage density impacts. Committee Member Keyser discussed
the negative consequences of sprawl, including increased infrastructure costs, pollution,
and urban heat effects, and highlighted the role of impact fees for new development.
Committee Member Smith reiterated concerns about potential over-development
impacting property values and local schools.

Committee Member Jak Keyser asked if there is a possibility that the overlay may be
amended in the future. Mr. Rogers explained that it is possible that the City may revisit
the ARM Overlay and explained that Proposition 207 makes it easier to grant changes
than to take them away.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the possibility of tabling the discussion. Mr.
Rogers explained that the text amendment will be heard by the City Council before the
next Alhambra VPC meeting.

Committee Member David Krietor expressed his support and stated that he would
second a motion.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 894
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y
October 22, 2024

Committee Member Crews thanked Committee Member Smith for her comments and
emphasized that the goal of the state law is to encourage greater density and provide
more housing options for everyone. Committee Member Crews described the urgency
of the situation, explained that the City is experiencing a significant population increase
and a housing shortage, and expressed appreciation for how the City is implementing
the state law through the overlay. Committee Member Crews explained that state laws
can change, stated that the current measures are a temporary solution, and
emphasizing the need to explore more comprehensive solutions. Committee Member
Smith cautioned that sometimes temporary solutions can become problematic.
Committee Member Crews explained that failing to act will result in more families facing
homelessness. Committee Member Smith expressed concern that new housing is too
expensive, and that young people are struggling to afford housing. Committee Member
Crews explained that unless the government steps in to subsidize housing and increase
taxes, negotiations with developers will be necessary to find workable solutions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Jak Keyser made a motion to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Elizabeth Sanchez seconded the
motion.

VOTE
11-2, motion to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members Crews, Farina, Harris, Keyser, Krietor, Owens,
Pimentel, Sanchez, Shultz, Camp, and DeGraffenreid in favor and Committee Members
Jones and Smith opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 895
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y
*REVISED November 1, 2024

Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on the
north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 16-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting, following a previous discussion Mr.
Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for
promoting growth in underdeveloped areas and aligns with the state legislative actions
encouraging adaptive reuse, creating a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance
to facilitate such projects. Mr. Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on
the maps to accommodate development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will
support adaptive reuse and multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous
presentations to the committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at
making multifamily and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse
said one key area of concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain
developments without public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use
buildings. Mr. Roanhorse stated additionally, the potential for increased height and
density in transit-oriented communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the
amendments seek to balance these factors with the existing zoning framework.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Paceley asked about the 10 percent allocation for affordable and
workforce housing and how would requirements for development be implemented. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that during the review process applicants and developer may
access how to include various housing types. Committee Member Paceley asked if the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Village Planning Committee will see plans and be able to add stipulations for housing
and development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that for rezoning cases that come to the
Committee they may review and provide feedback and if practical include stipulations.

Committee Member Augusta asked if parking would change as a result of this
proposed text amendment considering the implications of previous parking
amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that proposals would still meet the required
parking based on the zoning. Mr. Cameron McCutchen, staff, responded that with
parking requirements, instead of maximums the City utilized minimums to provide
allowance for a specific number of parking spaces. Mr. McCutchen stated that in some
cases options like the Walkable Urban Code allow flexibility in different transects to
incentivize measures to reduce automobile parking.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Paceley commented the proposed text amendments are a good
idea to include access to light rail and improve multifamily development and it makes
good sense.

MOTION

Committee Member Paceley motioned to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the
staff recommendation. Committee Member Sharaby seconded the motion.

VOTE

16-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg
Thraen, Garcia, Guevar, Jurayeva, Langmade, Paceley, Schmieder, Sharaby,
Whitesell, Williams, Fischbach and Swart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 897
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on the
north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with
modifications passes
VPC Vote 16-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting, following a previous discussion Mr.
Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for
promoting growth in underdeveloped areas and aligns with the state legislative actions
encouraging adaptive reuse, creating a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance
to facilitate such projects. Mr. Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on
the maps to accommodate development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will
support adaptive reuse and multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous
presentations to the committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at
making multifamily and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse
said one key area of concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain
developments without public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use
buildings. Mr. Roanhorse stated additionally, the potential for increased height and
density in transit-oriented communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the
amendments seek to balance these factors with the existing zoning framework.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Paceley asked about the 10 percent allocation for affordable and
workforce housing and how would requirements for development be implemented. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that during the review process applicants and developer may
access how to include various housing types. Committee Member Paceley asked if the
Village Committee will see plans and be able to add stipulations for housing and

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that for rezoning cases that come to the
Committee they may review and provide feedback and if practical include stipulations.

Committee Member Augusta asked if parking would change as a result of this
proposed text amendment considering the implications of previous parking
amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that proposals would still meet the required
parking based on the zoning. Mr. Cameron McCutchen, staff, responded that with
parking requirements, instead of maximum the City utilized minimums to provide
allowance for a specific number of parking spaces. Mr. McCutchen stated that in some
cases options like the Walkable Urban Code allow flexibility in different transects to
incentivize measures to reduce automobile parking.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Paceley commented the proposed text amendments are a good
idea to include access to light rail and improve multifamily development and it makes
good sense.

MOTION

Committee Member Paceley motioned to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the
staff recommendation. Committee Member Sharaby seconded the motion.

VOTE

16-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg
Thraen, Garcia, Guevar, Jurayeva, Langmade, Paceley, Schmieder, Sharaby,
Whitesell, Williams, Fischbach and Swart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 899
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on
the north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-4-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting. Mr. Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y
focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for promoting growth in underdeveloped
areas and aligns with the state legislative actions encouraging adaptive reuse, creating
a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance to facilitate such projects. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on the maps to accommodate
development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will support adaptive reuse and
multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous presentations to the
committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at making multifamily
and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse said one key area of
concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain developments without
public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use buildings. Mr. Roanhorse
stated additionally, the potential for increased height and density in transit-oriented
communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the amendments seek to balance
these factors with the existing zoning framework.

Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Chair Wagner commented that House Bill 2297, stipulates that no more than 10 percent of
eligible properties within the city can be developed for adaptive reuse. Chair Wagner stated that
the current TOC overlay seems to include over 20 percent of commercially zoned properties,
exceeding the 10 percent cap. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the 10 percent cap does not
necessarily apply to every property in the TOC, as the city has mapped areas where adaptive
reuse is appropriate. Mr. Roanhorse stated the focus is on working within the existing zoning
framework, ensuring consistency with what is already allowed by zoning ordinance. Mr.
Roanhorse stated the amendments will streamline adaptive reuse in areas that can
accommodate it without increasing zoning entitlements, maintaining balance between
development and current zoning laws.

Chair Wagner asked how the City will track commercial properties within the overlay to ensure
compliance with the amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is currently
gathering data on the percentage of commercial properties and their square footage and are
aware of the need to monitor this information for future development. Mr. Roanhorse stated that
in a previous presentation staff explained that exact numbers are still being collected.

Committee Member George asked whether the committee would be notified about specific
properties or buildings eligible for development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the committee
would be notified of any rezoning cases or changes, and that notices would still be provided for
developments that were by-right. Mr. Roanhorse stated that notifications would go to
neighborhoods and associations when significant changes or developments were made.

Committee Member Jewett stated there was not clarity regarding height restriction and
reiterated that what he understood in the presentation, and it did not align with what he was
reading in the legislation. Committee Member Jewett stated concern about buildings being
classified as functionally obsolete and noted the potential for manipulation by neglecting repairs
or setting rent prices high enough to keep properties vacant. Committee Member Jewett stated
that properties may be left to deteriorate intentionally and asked if there were any measures in
place to prevent such manipulation and noted the issue of neglected properties in his
neighborhood. Mr. Roanhorse responded that is a concern and will be a challenging issue and
stated the PDD (Planning and Development Department) is focused on fostering development
potential rather than driving economic disinvestment. Mr. Roanhorse said that the City can
collaborate with departments like Neighborhood Services to address repairs or underused
properties and noted that the City's Economic Development Department has measures in place
to intervene when necessary and some initiative falls on the private development community.
Mr. Roanhorse explained that the text amendment aims to prevent intentional disinvestment and
supports development in appropriate areas, particularly near transit corridors.

Chair Wagner expressed frustration that neither the City nor the State have provided clear
answers to important questions that were brought up during the review. Chair Wagner said that
there is a growing need for accessible workforce housing and noted the limitation of the

Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

adaptive reuse program is just 6 percent of the City's land, primarily around 50 TOD areas.
Chair Wagner stated that only 18 percent of service workers live in the TOD areas, leaving 88
percent of service workers without affordable housing options near transit locations. Chair
Wagner said the City should expand opportunities for adaptive reuse beyond the current
limitations, noting that more affordable housing options should be available in other areas like
Desert Ridge and Camelback East, rather than restricting it to a small percentage of land near
transit areas. Chair Wagner stated disappointment in the current approach and hoped that the
City will make adjustments by January to better address the housing needs of Phoenix's
workforce. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the overlay does promote the creation of affordable
housing by requiring that 10 percent of units be dedicated to affordable or workforce housing.
Mr. Roanhorse stated the importance of defining affordable and workforce housing, which has
been clarified in the amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the multifamily overlay and adaptive
reuse provisions encourage development in areas near transit, especially around light rail, while
allowing flexibility for developers to adapt projects to the unique characteristics of those zones.
Mr. Roanhorse stated that historic preservation remains unaffected by these changes.

Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is concern about the complexity of the proposed changes,
particularly in relation to HB 2297, noting that these types of amendments can be difficult to
understand. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that there needs for more accessible and visual
presentations, as well as clearer communication from the City to help the public understand the
details of proposed changes. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that staff working on proposals
should make them more digestible, particularly for community members unfamiliar with zoning
language. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that while developers are not mandated to use the
adaptive reuse and multifamily overlay, they must meet the affordability requirements if they
choose to participate. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are challenges in responding to
legislative requirements while maintaining practical zoning interaction with the public and
despite these challenges public involvement remains crucial, as various committees and
organizations are regularly engaged in the planning and review processes.

Vice Chair Rodriguez expressed frustration with the lack of feedback opportunities regarding
the TOC presentation. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated she walks, bikes, and uses public transit,
and it feel like a dead zone with lack vibrancy around Central Avenue. Vice Chair Rodriguez
said there is a need for improvements and the importance of providing workforce housing close
to transit corridors. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there are challenges faced by service workers
and teachers who deserve to live near where they work but currently do not have sufficient
options. Mr. Roanhorse responded the challenges in providing affordable housing and
workforce opportunities are significant and the City is in the process of expanding opportunities.

Committee Member Doescher stated concern with the current state legislation affecting
affordable housing and the pressing need for housing options near employment centers,
particularly for healthcare workers who often face challenges due to irregular hours. Committee
Member Doescher stated that while some developments may be located near light rail, this
approach does not address the diverse needs of all residents, especially those with limited
housing options. Committee Member Doescher said it is frustrating that state laws that do not
consider local realities, stating that these mandates could hinder cities' ability to address their

Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

unique housing challenges and the concern that developers might prioritize profit over
affordable housing.

Committee Member Warnicke expressed concerns about certain properties within the
TOD area, stating that some should not be designated for five-story buildings.
Committee Member Warnicke said that instead of focusing solely on the light rail
corridor for affordable housing, the city should also consider properties along bus routes
and mass transit lines and this approach would help protect neighborhoods from
changes like large out-of-place buildings and create affordable housing along existing
transit routes.

Chair Wagner stated that the state legislation originally intended to apply the TOD
statewide, but the City of Phoenix chose to focus on 60 percent of its land area. Chair
Wagner said it was disappointing that the City's current approach focuses on expensive
properties along the light rail corridor may not become affordable housing. Chair
Wagner said there might be an opportunity for small developers to convert underutilized
buildings across the entire City, rather than concentrating on a limited area and there is
a need for more meaningful progress and that they have until January to reconsider
their approach.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that when the City initiated the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, it was
a citywide proposal. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there were concerns at the time, including the
potential for overdevelopment in areas not ready for it, which led to opposition against it. Vice
Chair Rodriguez stated there is some confusion about the current situation, where there is now
interest in focusing citywide development around transportation, such as the light rail and asked
for clarification on the approach now, comparing it to previous concerns about the broader
application of the WU Code. Mr. Klimek responded that the WU Code was proposed citywide
and that it was reviewed by all 15 Village Planning Committees and stated that many projects
have successfully utilized the code in various areas of the city. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
while the WU Code had been applied successfully in some areas, it was not practical
everywhere and noted it has been adapted in a few projects, driving innovation in development,
particularly in mixed-use areas.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is difficulty in balancing the need for flexibility in
development with protecting neighborhoods from rapid development. Vice Chair
Rodriguez said there were past concerns about certain developments, such as the
Phoenix Country Club, which raised worries about similar projects taking an easier route
for approval and there needs to be better understand with the current perspective on
expanding development citywide, especially focusing on transit corridors. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that some areas are better suited for mixed-use or dense
development, while others may need a more specialized approach and there are many
challenges for future development.

Committee Member Procaccini asked about the potential for expanding development
beyond the current overlay boundaries and whether there are plans or metrics guiding

Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

future development areas. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is planning future
text amendments and noted that the City is trying to be more responsive in addressing
development needs, particularly around transportation hubs and with a focus on
increasing housing options, including single-family and multifamily developments. Mr.
Roanhorse referenced the Housing Phoenix Plan as a guide for future residential
growth.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.

MOTION FOR Z-136-24-Y:
Committee Member George motioned to recommend denial of Z-136-24-Y.
Committee Member Warnicke seconded the motion.
VOTE FOR Z-136-24-Y:
8-4-1; motioned to recommend denial of Z-136-24-Y passes with Committee Members
Doescher, George, Kleinman, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and Wagner
in favor; and Jewett, Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in opposition; and Cardenas
abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 15, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on the
north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west.
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 905
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 9, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on the
north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west.
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 906
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 16, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on
the north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 13-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Stockham, staff, provided a brief presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment Z-TA-3-24 and companion case Z-136-24-Y, sharing elements of the
legislation (HB 2297) and the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions, and the
hearing schedule for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews shared his understanding of the proposal and the
timeline for compliance with state law and shared a desire to recommend approval of
the proposal and to expand the applicability to other areas, such as Village Cores, in the
future.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 907
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo added that this is an opportunity to expand it to
other areas now.

Committee Member Arick O’Hara stated that he agreed with Committee Member
Jaramillo but not on the deadline to push this through by January. Committee Member
O’Hara stated that with a deadline to comply by January, the committee could vote no
without direction, and shared that when the committee makes a recommendation with
direction, there is a concern that the committee’s direction could not be listened to by
other hearing bodies. Committee Member O’Hara shared that he does not disagree with
the proposal but disagrees with the way it is being done and that he did not want to limit
it to an area now and expand it later.

Committee Member Mike Krentz shared that state law will be effective in January, this
proposal will serve as a template to expand it to other areas, and reminded the
committee of a previous proposal to expand the Walkable Urban Code applicability area
citywide which was met with opposition.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that City Council will take action before January,
and that he would also like to add direction regarding tracking and reporting the use of
the overlay provisions back to the Village Planning Committees.

Committee Member Joshua Carmona asked if other hearing bodies take into
consideration the direction provided by Village Planning Committees.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews replied that from a Planning Commissioner perspective,
he reads the Village Planning Committee recommendations and if, for example, a
Village Planning Committee recommended denial of a case unanimously, he will take a
close look at the discussion, and that Village Planning Committee recommendations
could impact the Planning Commission recommendation.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo stated he would also like to add direction to
include Village Cores, along the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, and other major
transportation corridors.

MOTION – Z-136-24-Y
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per
the staff recommendation with direction that the boundaries be expanded in the future to
include other areas in the city such as the Bus Rapid Transit line, Village Cores, and
other transportation corridors and that the Planning and Development Department track
and report the use of the overlay provisions to the Village Planning Committees. Vice
Chair Joshua Matthews seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-136-24-Y
13-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the staff recommendation with
direction passed; with Committee Members Alauria, Carmona, Garbarino, Jaramillo,
Krentz, Larson, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Pamperin, Sommacampagna, Matthews and
Fogelson in favor.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 908
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 909
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 8, 2024
Request Map the initial ARM Overlay boundaries within the
approved transit-oriented development district
boundaries generally bounded by Peoria Avenue on
the north, State Route 51 on the east, South Mountain
Avenue on the south, and 83rd Avenue on the west.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24 and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the
Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the overlay’s interaction with other policy plans, the
proposed allowances for multifamily development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for
the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Tamala Daniels inquired about the locations of the properties
presented as examples of sites that could be developed under the ARM Overlay. Mr.
Rogers stated that the presented example properties are not in South Mountain and
explained he does not know the exact locations.

Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on conflicts with the ARM Overlay and the
Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD). Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM Overlay
allows commercial properties to develop under the Walkable Urban (WU) Code Transect
T5:5 standards and explained the T5:5 maximum setback is less that the BAOD minimum
setback. Mr. Rogers explained that work had been done on an amendment to the BAOD
in the past but had never gone to City Council for approval. Committee Member T.
Daniels asked for clarification on why the amendment to the BAOD was not completed in
the past and stated that there had been a Text Amendment (TA) to expand the WU
Code’s applicability area. Mr. Rogers explained that he was not aware of the specific
reasons why the BAOD amendment was not completed and explained that the TA to
expand the WU Code’s applicability area ended up failing.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 910
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y
October 8, 2024

Committee Member Marcia Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD, stated that
she initiated the original effort to amend the BAOD, and explained that staff had informed
her that other TAs would need to occur before the BAOD text amendment, resulting in the
effort being paused. Committee Member Busching stated it is a good idea to include
initialization of the BAOD amendment in the motion.

Committee Member T. Daniels expressed confusion and frustration that the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) plan had been worked on for two years, but the BAOD
conflicts had not been addressed, and explained that the City had tried to put forth a
separate TA to reduce parking requirements for multifamily developments, but WU Code
already addresses reduced parking requirements. Mr. Rogers explained that for staff to
continue working on the BAOD amendment, the committee would need to include a
recommendation to amend the BAOD. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have
information regarding the order in which TAs are brought to the VPC, explained that
House Bill 2297 requires municipalities to implement new rules by the beginning of next
year, and stated the ARM Overlay brought renewed attention to the conflicts with the
BAOD.

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on whether resolving the
conflicts between the BAOD and the WU Code would require the WU Code to supersede
the BAOD. Committee Member Busching stated that the BAOD boundaries could be
amended to end at 7th Street.

Chair Marchuk asked for clarification on what process would be triggered if the
committee recommended amending the BAOD. Mr. Rogers explained that such a
recommendation would trigger an additional Text Amendment.

Committee Member T. Daniels discussed the area within the South Central TOD
Community Plan and the BAOD and asked about the boundaries of the BAOD.
Committee Member Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD. Mr. Rogers
explained that the City generally supports rezonings to the WU Code only if the site is
within a TOD plan area, and clarified that sites governed by the WU Code within the
BAOD cannot functionally develop due to conflicting regulations.

Chair Marchuk inquired whether the committee would discuss the matter next month.
Mr. Rogers stated that he would need to consult with his team to determine a timeline
moving forward.

Committee Member Brownell suggested that the committee could also make a motion
to modify the ARM Overlay to address the conflicts. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM
Overlay is not likely to change much and a modification of the BAOD would likely need to
be an amendment to the BAOD. Committee Member Brownell asked for confirmation
that, if there was an R1-6 property where a second story was being added, this process

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-136-24-Y
October 8, 2024

would not be impacted. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the ARM Overlay will not change the
process of permitting on an R1-6 property.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-136-
24-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Emma Viera seconded the
motion.

VOTE
12-0, motion to recommend approval of Z-136-24-Y per the staff recommendation passed
with Committee Members Alvarez, Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F.
Daniels, T. Daniels, Shepard, Viera, Greathouse, and Marchuk in favor.

Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing -
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Review
Timeframes and Written Protest Petition Exemption - Z-TA-8-24-Y (Ordinance
G-7320) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-8-24-Y and
to request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation
which amends Chapter 5, Section 506 (Text Amendments and Rezonings) of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address changes to the Arizona Revised Statutes
regarding an exemption for government owned properties when processing written
protest petitions for the three-fourths votes and rezoning application review time
frames (Senate Bill 1162).

Summary
The proposed text amendment includes two main components, both in Section 506:
1) addition of the exemption for government owned properties as related to written
protest petitions, and 2) revision of the rezoning application review process to
comply with timeframes mandated by SB 1162 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-8-24-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, for
information only.
PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on November
7, 2024.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.

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 5, SECTION 506 (TEXT AMENDMENTS
AND REZONINGS) TO ADDRESS CHANGES TO THE ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES REGARDING AN EXEMPTION FOR
GOVERNMENT OWNED PROPERTIES WHEN PROCESSING
WRITTEN PROTEST PETITIONS FOR THE THREE-FOURTHS
VOTES AND REZONING APPLICATION REVIEW TIMEFRAMES.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 5, Section 506 (Text Amendments and Rezonings),

is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 506. Text amendments and rezonings.

A. Amendments.

***
9. In the event that a written protest against a proposed amendment is filed in
the office of the City Clerk, or the City Clerk’s designee, no later than seven
days following Planning Commission action by the owners of 20 percent or
more of the property by area and number of lots, tracts and condominium
units within the zoning petition area, EXCLUDING GOVERNMENT OWNED
PROPERTY, such amendment shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of three-fourths of all the members of the City Council of the
any such amendment because of a conflict of interest, then the required
number of votes for passage of such amendment shall be three-fourths of

1 Ordinance G

the remaining membership of the City Council; provided, that such required
number of votes shall not be less than a majority of the full membership of
the City Council. For the purposes of this section, the percentage of the
favorable vote shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.

***

SeB. Rezonings.

***
5. REZONING APPLICATIONS. No application for a change of zone shall be
set for public hearing until a formal Planning and Development Department
review of the application has taken place. and the applicant has submitted
all the following materials in a form acceptable to the Planning and
Development Department, unless submission of the specific item is waived
by the Planning and Development Department.

a. APPLICATION. A REZONING APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE,
BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW UNLESS
WAIVED BY STAFF. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE
REQUESTED BY STAFF WHEN PERTINENT TO THE REZONING
REQUEST:

a. (1) Legal description.

b. (2) Letter of authorization to file. WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO
FILE FROM PROPERTY OWNER.

c. (3) Filing fee.

d. (4) Map OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION to include the following:

(1) (a) Parcel identification.

(2) (b) Existing zoning and uses on-site and adjacent property.

(3) (c) Intensity and/or density proposals.

(4) (d) Traffic and parking study, if required by Planning and
Development Department.

2 Ordinance G

(5) (e) Phasing schedule.

(6) (f) Statement on conformance to existing adopted City
plans.

(7) (g) Ownership map of property owners within three
hundred feet or nearest residence in all directions. This
shall be the most current ownership information
supplied through the Maricopa County Assessor’s
office.

(8) (h) Infrastructure: existing and proposed.

e. (5) Site plan and building elevations.

(1) (a) Building configuration and heights.

(2) (b) Setbacks.

(3) (c) Landscaped areas.

(4) (d) Appropriate calculations. e.g., parking, lot coverage.

(5) (e) Access points and modifications to existing street
improvements.

(6) (f) Street names, north point, date, right-of-way.

b. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS.

(1) PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR
REZONING, THE APPLICANT SHALL REQUEST AND
ATTEND TWO SEPARATE MEETINGS: A REZONING PRE-
APPLICATION MEETING, AND A DEVELOPMENT PRE-
APPLICATION MEETING, UNLESS WAIVED BY THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR.

(2) AFTER COMPLETING ANY REQUIRED PRE-APPLICATION
MEETINGS, A REZONING APPLICATION MAY BE
SUBMITTED WITH APPROPRIATE FEES AS PROVIDED IN
APPENDIX A, ZONING FEE SCHEDULE.

3 Ordinance G

(3) ONCE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS REVIEW PERIOD
SHALL BEGIN, WHERE STAFF WILL DETERMINE IF THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.

(4) ONCE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, THE SUBSTANTIVE
REVIEW PERIOD SHALL BEGIN, WHERE STAFF
EVALUATE THE REZONING REQUEST AND SET PUBLIC
HEARING DATES.

(5) FOLLOWING THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW PERIOD,
PUBLIC HEARINGS, UP TO AND INCLUDING CITY
COUNCIL, SHALL BE CONDUCTED AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 506.

c. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS REVIEW.

(1) FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS REQUESTING REZONING
TO OR FROM HP, HP-L, OR PUD, OR APPLICATIONS FOR
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES,
STAFF SHALL REVIEW EACH APPLICATION FOR
COMPLETENESS IN THE MANNER OUTLINED IN THE
APPLICATION PACKET PUBLISHED ON THE CITY OF
PHOENIX WEBSITE.

(2) FOR ALL OTHER REZONING APPLICATIONS, STAFF
SHALL CONDUCT AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS
REVIEW AS FOLLOWS:

(a) STAFF SHALL CONDUCT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLETENESS REVIEW WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
SUBMISSION.

(b) IF AN APPLICATION IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY
COMPLETE, STAFF SHALL PROVIDE THE
APPLICANT WITH A NOTICE THAT INCLUDES A
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF THE SPECIFIC
DEFICIENCIES.

4 Ordinance G

(i) ONCE THE NOTICE IS ISSUED, THE
APPLICANT SHALL RESUBMIT THE
APPLICATION, ADDRESSING ALL
DEFICIENCIES. IF NOT RESUBMITTED
WITHIN 15 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE
NOTICE, THE APPLICATION MAY BE
CONSIDERED VOID AND APPLICATION FEES
REFUNDED, MINUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CHARGE.

(ii) FOR A RESUBMITTED APPLICATION, STAFF
SHALL CONDUCT ANOTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS REVIEW
WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ALL DEFICIENCIES
HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.

(iii) IF A RESUBMITTED APPLICATION IS STILL
NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, STEPS
(i) AND (ii) SHALL BE REPEATED UNTIL THE
APPLICATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY
COMPLETE, OR THE APPLICATION IS
WITHDRAWN.

(3) WHEN AN APPLICATION IS DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVELY
COMPLETE, THE CITY SHALL ISSUE A NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS TO THE APPLICANT.

d. SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW. ALL REZONING APPLICATIONS SHALL
BEGIN THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW PROCESS ONCE
DETERMINED TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. THE
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,
THE FOLLOWING:

(1) STAFF EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST RELATED TO
ADOPTED CODES, ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES.

(2) NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, IF REQUIRED.

5 Ordinance G

(3) POST-APPLICATION MEETING WITH STAFF, WHERE THE
REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING DATES ARE SET.

(4) REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.

e. APPLICATION REVIEW TIMEFRAMES.

(1) FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS REQUESTING REZONING
TO OR FROM HP, HP-L, OR PUD, OR APPLICATIONS FOR
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES,
THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
SHALL BE CONDUCTED PER THE TIMEFRAMES
OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET PUBLISHED ON
THE CITY OF PHOENIX WEBSITE.

(2) FOR ALL OTHER REZONING APPLICATIONS, THE
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW SHALL BEGIN A 180-DAY PERIOD
WITHIN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW AND ALL
REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED.
THE CITY COUNCIL MUST APPROVE OR DENY AN
APPLICATION BEFORE THE END OF THE 180-DAY
PERIOD, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

(a) FOR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CITY
MAY EXTEND THE REVIEW PERIOD ONCE, FOR
NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

(b) AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THE CITY
MAY GRANT EXTENSIONS OF THE REVIEW
PERIOD IN INCREMENTS OF 30 DAYS.

f. At the applicant’s request, the formal Planning and Development
Department review may be postponed for up to ninety days from the
date the application was filed. In the event the applicant is unable to
submit the above-referenced materials within the ninety-day period,
the application shall be considered terminated and all fees paid by
the applicant shall be forfeited. IN THE EVENT THAT AN
APPLICATION IS WITHDRAWN, NO FEES SHALL BE REFUNDED
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED BY ADOPTED PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT POLICIES.

6 Ordinance G

***

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November,

2024.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney

By:
_________________________
_________________________

REVIEWED BY:

_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

7 Ordinance G

ATTACHMENT B

Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024

Application No. Z-TA-8-24-Y: Amend Chapter 5, Section 506 (Text Amendments and
Rezonings) of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address changes to the Arizona
Revised Statutes regarding an exemption for government owned properties when
processing written protest petitions for the three-fourths votes and rezoning application
review timeframes (Senate Bill 1162).

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-8-24-Y as shown in the
proposed text in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This text amendment is a response to Senate Bill 1162, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session (2024) which included provisions that modified the Arizona
Revised Statutes to require municipalities to add an exemption for government owned
properties when processing written protest petitions for the three-fourths voting
requirement, and to impose rezoning application review timeframes. This text
amendment will bring City of Phoenix zoning regulations in compliance with the
modified State regulations.

SB 1162 also requires municipalities to adopt these new provisions on or before
January 1, 2025.

PROPOSAL
Staff recommend changes to Chapter 5, Section 506 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to comply with the provisions of SB 1162, together with a few minor formatting changes.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes two main components, both in Section 506: 1)
addition of the exemption for government owned properties as related to written protest
petitions, and 2) revision of the rezoning application review process to comply with
timeframes mandated by SB 1162.

1. Government Owned Property Exemption

Staff Report: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 2

SB 1162 modified Arizona Revised Statutes §9-462.04 to add a new exemption
(shown in capitals) and now reads as follows:

H. If the owners of twenty percent or more of the property by area and number of
lots, tracts and condominium units within the zoning area of the affected property,
EXCLUDING GOVERNMENT OWNED PROPERTY, file a protest in writing
against a proposed amendment, the change shall not become effective except by
the favorable vote of three-fourths of all members of the governing body of the
municipality.

Section 506.A.9 of the Zoning Ordinance has therefore been updated to match
(change shown in capitals):

506.A.9 In the event that a written protest against a proposed amendment is filed
in the office of the City Clerk, or the City Clerk’s designee, no later than
seven days following Planning Commission action by the owners of 20
percent or more of the property by area and number of lots, tracts and
condominium units within the zoning petition area, EXCLUDING
GOVERNMENT OWNED PROPERTY, such amendment shall not
become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fourths of all the
members of the City Council of the City of Phoenix.

2. Revision of the Rezoning Application Review Process

SB 1162 modified the Arizona Revised Statutes to add a new section §9-462.13,
which imposes timeframes for rezoning applications, as follows:

• 30 days for initial Administrative Completeness review;

• 15 days for resubmitted Administrative Completeness review;

• 180 days to either approve or deny application after application deemed
Administratively complete.

The modifications by SB 1162 exempt historic districts/properties and Planned Unit
Developments (PUD) from these timeframes. The modifications also address
extensions to the prescribed timeframes, in a very restricted manner, as follows:

• The City may initiate a single 30-day extension beyond the 180 days, for
“extenuating circumstances”, which are not defined in the modified statute.

• The applicant may request multiple extensions which may be granted by the
City, but each extension is limited to 30 days.

Staff Report: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 3

Section 506.B.5 has therefore been revised to comply with the timeframe
requirements of SB 1162, as shown in the attached Exhibit A.

CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, provided in Exhibit A, will bring the
City into compliance with the requirements of SB 1162.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in Exhibit
A.

Writer
C. DePerro
September 30, 2024

Exhibit

A. Proposed Language

Exhibit A: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 4

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:

Amend Chapter 5, Section 506 (Text amendments and rezonings) as follows:

Section 506. Text amendments and rezonings.

A. Amendments.

***
9. In the event that a written protest against a proposed amendment is filed in
the office of the City Clerk, or the City Clerk’s designee, no later than seven
days following Planning Commission action by the owners of 20 percent or
more of the property by area and number of lots, tracts and condominium
units within the zoning petition area, EXCLUDING GOVERNMENT OWNED
PROPERTY, such amendment shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of three-fourths of all the members of the City Council of the
any such amendment because of a conflict of interest, then the required
number of votes for passage of such amendment shall be three-fourths of
the remaining membership of the City Council; provided, that such required
number of votes shall not be less than a majority of the full membership of
the City Council. For the purposes of this section, the percentage of the
favorable vote shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.

***

SeB. Rezonings.

***
5. REZONING APPLICATIONS. No application for a change of zone shall be
set for public hearing until a formal Planning and Development Department
review of the application has taken place. and the applicant has submitted
all the following materials in a form acceptable to the Planning and
Development Department, unless submission of the specific item is waived
by the Planning and Development Department.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 5

a. APPLICATION. A REZONING APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE,
BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW UNLESS
WAIVED BY STAFF. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE
REQUESTED BY STAFF WHEN PERTINENT TO THE REZONING
REQUEST:

a. (1) Legal description.

b. (2) Letter of authorization to file. WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO
FILE FROM PROPERTY OWNER.

c. (3) Filing fee.

d. (4) Map OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION to include the following:

(1) (a) Parcel identification.

(2) (b) Existing zoning and uses on-site and adjacent property.

(3) (c) Intensity and/or density proposals.

(4) (d) Traffic and parking study, if required by Planning and
Development Department.

(5) (e) Phasing schedule.

(6) (f) Statement on conformance to existing adopted City
plans.

(7) (g) Ownership map of property owners within three
hundred feet or nearest residence in all directions. This
shall be the most current ownership information
supplied through the Maricopa County Assessor’s
office.

(8) (h) Infrastructure: existing and proposed.

e. (5) Site plan and building elevations.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 6

(1) (a) Building configuration and heights.

(2) (b) Setbacks.

(3) (c) Landscaped areas.

(4) (d) Appropriate calculations. e.g., parking, lot coverage.

(5) (e) Access points and modifications to existing street
improvements.

(6) (f) Street names, north point, date, right-of-way.

b. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS.

(1) PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR
REZONING, THE APPLICANT SHALL REQUEST AND
ATTEND TWO SEPARATE MEETINGS: A REZONING PRE-
APPLICATION MEETING, AND A DEVELOPMENT PRE-
APPLICATION MEETING, UNLESS WAIVED BY THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR.

(2) AFTER COMPLETING ANY REQUIRED PRE-APPLICATION
MEETINGS, A REZONING APPLICATION MAY BE
SUBMITTED WITH APPROPRIATE FEES AS PROVIDED IN
APPENDIX A, ZONING FEE SCHEDULE.

(3) ONCE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS REVIEW PERIOD
SHALL BEGIN, WHERE STAFF WILL DETERMINE IF THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.

(4) ONCE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, THE SUBSTANTIVE
REVIEW PERIOD SHALL BEGIN, WHERE STAFF
EVALUATE THE REZONING REQUEST AND SET PUBLIC
HEARING DATES.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 7

(5) FOLLOWING THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW PERIOD,
PUBLIC HEARINGS, UP TO AND INCLUDING CITY
COUNCIL, SHALL BE CONDUCTED AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 506.

c. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS REVIEW.

(1) FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS REQUESTING REZONING
TO OR FROM HP, HP-L, OR PUD, OR APPLICATIONS FOR
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES,
STAFF SHALL REVIEW EACH APPLICATION FOR
COMPLETENESS IN THE MANNER OUTLINED IN THE
APPLICATION PACKET PUBLISHED ON THE CITY OF
PHOENIX WEBSITE.

(2) FOR ALL OTHER REZONING APPLICATIONS, STAFF
SHALL CONDUCT AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS
REVIEW AS FOLLOWS:

(a) STAFF SHALL CONDUCT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLETENESS REVIEW WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
SUBMISSION.

(b) IF AN APPLICATION IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY
COMPLETE, STAFF SHALL PROVIDE THE
APPLICANT WITH A NOTICE THAT INCLUDES A
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF THE SPECIFIC
DEFICIENCIES.

(i) ONCE THE NOTICE IS ISSUED, THE
APPLICANT SHALL RESUBMIT THE
APPLICATION, ADDRESSING ALL
DEFICIENCIES. IF NOT RESUBMITTED
WITHIN 15 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE
NOTICE, THE APPLICATION MAY BE
CONSIDERED VOID AND APPLICATION FEES
REFUNDED, MINUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CHARGE.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 8

(ii) FOR A RESUBMITTED APPLICATION, STAFF
SHALL CONDUCT ANOTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS REVIEW
WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ALL DEFICIENCIES
HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.

(iii) IF A RESUBMITTED APPLICATION IS STILL
NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, STEPS
(i) AND (ii) SHALL BE REPEATED UNTIL THE
APPLICATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY
COMPLETE, OR THE APPLICATION IS
WITHDRAWN.

(3) WHEN AN APPLICATION IS DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVELY
COMPLETE, THE CITY SHALL ISSUE A NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETENESS TO THE APPLICANT.

d. SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW. ALL REZONING APPLICATIONS SHALL
BEGIN THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW PROCESS ONCE
DETERMINED TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. THE
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,
THE FOLLOWING:

(1) STAFF EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST RELATED TO
ADOPTED CODES, ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES.

(2) NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, IF REQUIRED.

(3) POST-APPLICATION MEETING WITH STAFF, WHERE THE
REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING DATES ARE SET.

(4) REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.

e. APPLICATION REVIEW TIMEFRAMES.

Exhibit A: Z-TA-8-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 9

(1) FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS REQUESTING REZONING
TO OR FROM HP, HP-L, OR PUD, OR APPLICATIONS FOR
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES,
THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
SHALL BE CONDUCTED PER THE TIMEFRAMES
OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET PUBLISHED ON
THE CITY OF PHOENIX WEBSITE.

(2) FOR ALL OTHER REZONING APPLICATIONS, THE
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW SHALL BEGIN A 180-DAY PERIOD
WITHIN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW AND ALL
REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED.
THE CITY COUNCIL MUST APPROVE OR DENY AN
APPLICATION BEFORE THE END OF THE 180-DAY
PERIOD, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

(a) FOR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CITY
MAY EXTEND THE REVIEW PERIOD ONCE, FOR
NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

(b) AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THE CITY
MAY GRANT EXTENSIONS OF THE REVIEW
PERIOD IN INCREMENTS OF 30 DAYS.

f. At the applicant’s request, the formal Planning and Development
Department review may be postponed for up to ninety days from the
date the application was filed. In the event the applicant is unable to
submit the above-referenced materials within the ninety-day period,
the application shall be considered terminated and all fees paid by
the applicant shall be forfeited. IN THE EVENT THAT AN
APPLICATION IS WITHDRAWN, NO FEES SHALL BE REFUNDED
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED BY ADOPTED PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT POLICIES.

***

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

79 item(s)

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-11/13/2024 complete

1. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on February 21,

Item text

Supporting documents

2. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on March 6, 2024

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on March 20,

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on April 3, 2024

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Summary

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Coconut's Fish Cafe - District 2

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill #57 - District 2

Item text

Supporting documents

8. ¶ Liquor License - Fire and Fury Brewing Company - District 3

Item text

Supporting documents

9. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Chatting with Char Char - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

10. ¶ Liquor License - The Larder & The Delta - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

11. ¶ Liquor License - Mandarin Buffet - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

12. ¶ Liquor License - Rubio's Coastal Grill #292 - District 4

Item text

Supporting documents

13. ¶ Liquor License - Rubio's Baja Grill #99 - District 6

Item text

Supporting documents

14. ¶ Liquor License - Grand Avenue Brewing Company - District 7

Item text

Supporting documents

15. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Children's Museum of Phoenix - District 8

Item text

Supporting documents

16. ¶ Brody Chemical Company, Inc.

Item text

Supporting documents

17. ¶ LambTech, Inc

Item text

Supporting documents

18. ¶ Settlement of Claim(s) Kwan v. City of Phoenix

Item text

Supporting documents

19. ¶ Adoption of 2025-26 Budget Calendar - Citywide

Item text

Supporting documents

20. ¶ American Rescue Plan Act Obligation Deadline and Final Reallocation - Citywide

Item text

Supporting documents

21. ¶ Request for City Council to Call to Meet in Executive Session on Specific Dates

Item text

Supporting documents

22. ¶ Proposed 67th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road Right-of-Way Annexation

Item text

Supporting documents

23. ¶ Proposed 53rd Avenue and Broadway Road Annexation (Ordinance S-51412) -

Item text

Supporting documents

24. ¶ Apply for U.S. Department of Commerce Digital Equity Competitive Grant

Item text

Supporting documents

25. ¶ Safety and Non-Safety Uniforms, Accessories and Related Services - IFB 20-057

Item text

Supporting documents

26. ¶ Vehicle Rental Services Contract - IFB-24-0351 - Request for Award (Ordinance S

Item text

Supporting documents

27. ¶ Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements for A High Intensity Activated