Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-11/2/2022 complete
2022-11-02 · Formal
City Council Formal Meeting
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of Oct. 21, 2020, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 9
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 10
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: November 2, 2022
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: *REVISED FOR ADD-ON: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
*Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Anna Sepic
Ms. Sepic is the Vice President of Levrose Commercial Real Estate and a resident of
District 2. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.
Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Suzanna Armijo
Ms. Armijo is a Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor for the Rehabilitation Services
Administration in the Arizona Department of Economic Security. She replaces Jon
Ellerston as the Vocational Rehabilitation representative and will fulfill his term to expire
June 30, 2025.
Phoenix Youth and Education Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Jeff Golner
Mr. Golner is the President and Chief Executive Officer at STEM Sports. He fills a
vacancy for a term to expire August 31, 2025.
Page 11
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 206503.
Summary
Applicant
Gilda Ralon, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
2902 E. Greenway Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 8, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
Page 12
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the Capability, Reliability to hold a liquor license because I currently hold 4
series 10 license and one series 12 . Two are in Mesa, Az and four are in Phoenix,AZ.
I have been operating a liquor licenses since 2016 with no violations. I follow all laws
and make sure all my stores and restaurants follow the regulations and responsibilities
of holding a liquor license.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My convenience store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood . to
buy beer and wine. the location will be convenient for people in the neighborhood who
may not have access to transportation. Adding the long time experience I have running
a store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe and
convenience place for customers to purchase goods and liquor.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Mi Pueblo Market #2
Liquor License Map - Mi Pueblo Market #2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 13
Liquor License Data: MI PUEBLO MARKET #2
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Liquor Store 9 8 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 1
Restaurant 12 10 2
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 55.33 62.20 73.35
Violent Crimes 10.50 9.68 12.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 51 89
Total Violations 88 169
Page 14
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033023 1946 82 % 2% 19 %
1033033 1037 75 % 23 % 0%
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
1033043 1952 26 % 28 % 48 %
1033052 2333 59 % 9% 30 %
1033061 921 18 % 28 % 32 %
1033062 2272 17 % 22 % 37 %
1035011 1381 67 % 5% 23 %
1035012 999 80 % 8% 26 %
1035013 1038 66 % 0% 40 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 15
Liquor License Map: MI PUEBLO MARKET #2
2902 E GREENWAY RD
Ü
Date: 9/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 16
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 207203.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
7000 E. Mayo Blvd., Bldg. 25
Zoning Classification: PUD PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently being remodeled with plans to open December 2022.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 14, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations on file with the AZ
Page 17
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within the boundaries of
Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the last 12 months for
the address listed.
Trevor's (Series 7 and 9)
7340 E. Mcdowell Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is an experienced licensee committed to upholding the highest standards to
maintain compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Trevor's will open its second valley retail store, offering a wide range of beer, wine,
and spirits.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Trevor's
Liquor License Map - Trevor's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 18
Liquor License Data: TREVORS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 7 5
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Hotel 11 1 1
Restaurant 12 25 21
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 55.33 24.49 11.99
Violent Crimes 10.50 2.62 0.74
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 50 0
Total Violations 87
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
2168442 1681 50 % 43 % 4%
2168452 694 23 % 38 % 8%
6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 19
Liquor License Map: TREVORS
7000 E MAYO BLVD
Ü
Date: 9/19/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 20
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 009070018953 and
009070018953S
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 9 and 9S - Liquor Store with Sampling Privileges
Location
7000 E. Mayo Blvd., Bldg. 25
Zoning Classification: PUD PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a liquor store. This
business is currently being remodeled with plans to open December 2022.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 18, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 21
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Trevor's (Series 7 and 9)
7340 E. McDowell Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is an experienced licensee committed to upholding the highest standards to
maintain compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Trevor's will provide a family-friendly, neighborhood restaurant offering a variety of
pizzas, sandwiches and salads in a relaxing atmosphere. Applicant would like to offer
alcoholic beverages to guests 21 and over.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Trevor's
Liquor License Map - Trevor's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 22
Liquor License Data: TREVOR'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 7 5
Liquor Store 9 1 1
Hotel 11 1 1
Restaurant 12 25 21
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 55.33 24.49 11.99
Violent Crimes 10.50 2.62 0.74
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 50 0
Total Violations 88
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
2168442 1681 50 % 43 % 4%
2168452 694 23 % 38 % 8%
6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 23
Liquor License Map: TREVOR'S
7000 E MAYO BLVD
Ü
Date: 9/29/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 24
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Stanislav Duric
Location
11640 N. 16th Place
Council District: 3
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 12, 2022 - 8 p.m to 1 a.m. / 300 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 25
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 207058.
Summary
Applicant
Katherine Miron, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2308 W. Northern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 13, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 26
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"I have taken the necessary steps to be a responsible liquor license holder and taken
the time to train my self above and beyond the state requirements.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“this can be a social gathering place for adult individuals to come in and dine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Reinas De Las Pupusas Restaurant
Liquor License Map - Reinas De Las Pupusas Restaurant
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 27
Liquor License Data: REINAS DE LAS PUPUSAS
RESTAURANT
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 3
Restaurant 12 5 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 55.33 8.46 11.14
Violent Crimes 10.50 4.72 7.11
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 50 92
Total Violations 87 182
Page 28
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1055011 1055 38 % 6% 59 %
1055012 1442 0% 11 % 38 %
1055021 777 0% 25 % 45 %
1055031 93 0% 24 % 67 %
1055032 782 25 % 26 % 16 %
1055033 2109 1% 18 % 38 %
1056012 1895 76 % 6% 27 %
1059001 1697 50 % 0% 42 %
1060011 1487 31 % 17 % 50 %
1060021 1678 27 % 14 % 27 %
1060022 872 25 % 29 % 35 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 29
Liquor License Map: REINAS DE LAS PUPUSAS RESTAURANT
2308 W NORTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 9/19/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 30
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 206687.
Summary
Applicant
Randy Bortin, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
888 N. 1st Ave., Ste.114
Zoning Classification: DTC - Downtown Gateway
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor liquor service.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 12, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Page 31
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have possessed a series 12 license for 6 years from 2016 to 2022. I respect the
privilege and do my best to abide by all laws, rules and regulations pertaining to this
priviledge.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We will be a great addition to the Roosevelt Arts District providing mexican inspired
food and culture.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Hamburguesas Y Cervezas
Liquor License Map - Hamburguesas Y Cervezas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Anthony Romero
Location
1501 E. Mohave St.
Council District: 8
Function
Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 19, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. / 1,300 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 36
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 209777.
Summary
Applicant
Julie Ocampo, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
622 E. Adams St.
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Nov. 14, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 37
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have had several years of experience in Restaurants as well as serving alcohol. I
have owned two foodtrucks over the last 6 years.and maintained a professional and
responsible business attitude and integrity.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are bringing a South American cuisine to the Heritage Square Community. We will
have a lot of diversity and culture. Our food will compliment the Italian and African
cuisine that is next door.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Que Sazon
Liquor License Map - Que Sazon
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 38
Liquor License Data: QUE SAZON
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 0
Wholesaler 4 1 1
Government 5 8 6
Bar 6 43 19
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 5
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 14 1
Hotel 11 6 3
Restaurant 12 93 33
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 55.33 723.24 1309.44
Violent Crimes 10.50 151.61 252.01
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 50 62
Total Violations 88 109
Page 39
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1132021 731 33 % 20 % 74 %
1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %
1140001 1831 25 % 20 % 47 %
1140002 78 77 % 0% 32 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 40
Liquor License Map: QUE SAZON
622 E ADAMS ST
Ü
Date: 9/22/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 41
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-49119) (Items 11-15)
11 Arizona Department of Revenue
For $1,077,585.10 in payment authority for the statutory fee assessed to
local governments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the Finance Department.
The funds will be used to recover a portion of the administrative,
development, and other operating costs incurred in implementing the
State's Integrated Tax System Modernization Project, pursuant to A.R.S.
42-5041 through the passage of House Bill 2871 in 2022.
12 Arizona Forward Association
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for the City's membership renewal
and continued participation as a Visionary member of Arizona Forward for
Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the City Manager's Office. Arizona Forward's 200
members include businesses, government agencies, nonprofit
organizations and 17 municipalities including the City of Phoenix, which
has been a member of Arizona Forward since 1990 and a Visionary
member since 2007.
13 Levi, Ray & Shoup, Inc.
For $62,763.99 in additional payment authority under Contract 103651 for
annual system maintenance costs for the Retirement Department. The
costs are for the public safety portion of the system only. The increased
spending authority is necessary as the annual maintenance costs for this
system are dependent on many factors such as the number of
active-retired employees and basic system support required. The annual
maintenance costs were approved by the Phoenix Fire and Police Local
Retirement Boards at their Oct. 4, 2022, board meeting.
14 Wilson Engineers, LLC
For $29,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 147217 for
Page 42
additional construction administration and special inspection for the Water
Services Department. The construction administration and special
inspection is necessary for installation of new grit basins to remove solids
from wastewater by gravitational settling in support of the 23rd Avenue
Wastewater Treatment Plant Grit Basin Replacement project. The
complexity of this project and findings during project demolition, requires
additional construction support. The project will use funds from the Water
Services Department's Capital Improvement budget; no General Funds
are required.
15 Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District doing business as SRP
For $38,810.00 in payment authority to reimburse Salt River Project
(SRP) for irrigation design completed for the Street Transportation
Department. The reimbursement is for the SRP portion of the 43rd
Avenue and Thomas Road project ST85100408.
Page 43
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-49126)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate an easement for sidewalk
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Native American Connections, Inc., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 3406 N. 3rd St.
File: FN 220077
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 44
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Various Locations (Ordinance S-49133)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests required by donation, purchase within the City's
appraised value, or by the power of eminent domain for High-Intensity Activated
CrossWalK signals at various locations. Further request to authorize dedication of land
with roadway and/or public improvements to public use for right-of-way purposes via
separate recording instrument. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
Acquisition of real property is required to install High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK
(HAWK) signals to enhance pedestrian safety. Improvements include illuminated
crosswalks, American with Disabilities Act compliant sidewalks, and pedestrian signals.
The locations for the HAWK signals were identified based on transit bus stops; access;
and connections to residential homes, park, office buildings, shopping centers, and
schools.
The projects will enhance pedestrian crossing safety at the following locations:
1. Indian School Road between 33rd Drive and 31st Avenue
2. McDowell Road between 3rd and 7th streets
3. Southern Avenue and Montezuma Street
4. Thomas Road between 32nd and 39th streets
5. 27th Avenue between Hazelwood Street and Highland Avenue
The parcels affected by this project are identified in Attachment A.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Location
Various Locations
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8
Page 45
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 46
Attachment A
Property Identification
Acquisition of Real Property for High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Signals at
Various Locations
The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and
included in this request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel
number (APN) and the address or location.
APN Address / Location
108-01-166R 33rd Avenue and Indian School Road
113-40-028 234 W. Southern Ave.
114-03-100 6001 S. Montezuma St.
118-54-110A 340 E. McDowell Road
127-30-042B 3434 E. Thomas Road
154-12-042A Northeast corner 27th Avenue and Hazelwood Street
154-24-032A 3140 W. Indian School Road
154-24-052 3208 W. Indian School Road
1 of 1
Page 47
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Award (Ordinance S-49123)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Holland & Knight LLP to provide federal lobbying services for the Office of Government
Relations. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $1,380,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Office of Government Relations federal lobbying and
advocacy services in key issues regarding public safety, community development,
transportation, environment and water sustainability. In addition, the contractor will
assist in the development and implementation of the City's Federal Legislative Agenda,
provide briefings to key City stakeholders during the federal legislative session and
provide insight and guidance related to important federal legislative bills, amendments
and developments.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria
with a maximum possible point total of 1,000:
Method of Approach (0-450 points);
Experience and Qualifications (0-325 points); and
Price (0-225 points).
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:
Holland & Knight LLP - 842 total points
Page 48
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Dec.1, 2022, for a two-year term with three one-
year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,380,000.
Funding is available in the Office of Government Relations budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 49
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-49124)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148637 with Landis Cyclery Inc. for the purchase of
Bicycles, Parts, Accessories, Repair and Maintenance for Citywide departments.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $66,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the City's essential workers with bicycles, parts, accessories,
and repair and maintenance services to ensure bicycles are in optimal working
condition for the safety of employees who use them in performance of daily
responsibilities. Due to the recent need to replace aging equipment and increased
pricing for many items, the original funds are insufficient for the remaining contract
term. The main users of this contract are the Phoenix Convention Center, Aviation,
Fire, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Police, and Public Transit departments.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Oct. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $66,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $166,000. Funds are available in the various departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Bicycles, Parts, Accessories, Repair and maintenance Contract 148637 (Ordinance S
-45023) on Oct. 3, 2018
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 50
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 149535 with Riester Sonoran, LLC for the purchase of
graphic designs and marketing services for Aviation, Community and Economic
Development and Government Relations departments. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $275,000.
Summary
This contract provides interactive marketing services, including website design,
graphic designs, advertising and public relations services for the City. The additional
funds will allow the Aviation and Community and Economic Development departments
to utilize this contract to meet unanticipated graphic designs and creative marketing
needs. These funds are necessary for vital graphic design services needed for a
number of projects required to promote the airport systems and services.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on March 20, 2024.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $275,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $4,455,960. Funds are available in the Aviation and
Community and Economic Development departments' budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-45442) on March 20, 2019;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-45967) on Aug. 28, 2019;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-47183) on Dec. 16, 2020;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-46605) on May 6, 2020;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-47321) on Feb. 17, 2021;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-47708) on June 16, 2021;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-48190) on Dec. 15, 2021;
• Marketing Services Contract 149535 (Ordinance S-48866) on July 1, 2022.
Page 51
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Ginger Spencer
and the Aviation and Community and Economic Development departments.
Page 52
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-00002842 - Amendment (Ordinance S-49131)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee to allow additional
expenditures under Contracts 147848 with PCI&TS, LLC and 147849 with AT
Translators, LLC for the purchase of Statewide Foreign Language Interpretation and
Translation Services for Citywide departments. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not
exceed $371,031.
Summary
This contract will provide the City with in-person, telephone and written interpretation
and translation services on an as-needed basis. Interpreter and translation services
are provided during public, private and community meetings and events in addition to
emergency and non-emergency situations such as natural disasters and to provide
support for an increase in call volume from the general public. This contract will be
utilized extensively for the General Obligation (GO) Bond program, and the Mayor and
be used for the Parks and Recreation Department's Partners Program, allowing on-site
interpreters to provide translation services, as required by law. Main users of this
contract include the Communications Office and Office of Environmental Programs,
and the Housing, Human Services, Parks and Recreation, Police, Neighborhood
Services, City Clerk, and Budget and Research departments.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on April 17, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $371,031 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $897,109. Funds are available in various departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Statewide Foreign Language Interpretation and Translation Services Contract
Page 53
147848 (Ordinance S-44495) on April 18, 2018;
• Statewide Foreign Language Interpretation and Translation Services Contract
147849 (Ordinance S-46961) on Oct. 07, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 54
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
49132)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contracts 147009 with Bluum USA, Inc., 147007 with Commercial Computer Services,
Inc. dba CCS Presentation Systems, 147438 with Ford Audio-Video Systems, LLC,
155410 with IES Communications, LLC, 147008 with Inter Technologies Corporation,
147011 with Level 3 Audio Visual, LLC, and 147010 with Presentation Products, Inc.
dba Spinitar to extend the contract term. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional funds are needed,
request to continue using ordinance S-44246.
Summary
This contract will provide the City with a broad range of audio and video equipment
and professional engineer services. Contractors will continue providing essential
services and equipment for the Emergency Operations Center, 911 Operations,
PHXTV, Know99, City Council Assembly Rooms and Council Chambers, as well as
direct engineering support, such as analysis, design, and configuration of existing
systems. This contract extension will allow a new procurement to be completed without
a lapse in services. The main users of this contract include the Communications Office
and Office of Environmental Programs, and the Housing, Human Services, Parks and
Recreations, Police, Neighborhood Services, City Clerk, and Budget and Research
departments.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Aug. 11, 2023
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $7,450,000 and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• AV Equipment and Services Contracts 147009, 147007, 147438, 155410, 147008,
147011, 147010 (Ordinance S-44246) on Jan. 24, 2018;
Page 55
• AV Equipment and Services Contract 147010 (Ordinance S-45757) on June 5, 2019;
• AV Equipment and Services Contracts 147009, 147007, 147438, 147008, 147011,
147010 (Ordinance S-46260) on Dec. 18, 2019;
• AV Equipment and Services Contract 155410 (Ordinance S-47907) on Sept. 8, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 56
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-49134)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Highground, Inc. and Dorn Policy Group, Inc. to provide State Legislative Lobbying
Services for the Office of Government Relations. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will
not exceed $1,574,575.20.
Summary
This contract will provide the Office of Government Relations state legislative lobbying
services in key issues regarding aviation, criminal justice, water sustainability, public
safety, and general municipal issues. In addition, the contractor will assist in the
development and implementation of the City's State Legislative Agenda, provide
briefings to key City stakeholders during the state legislative session and provide
insight and guidance related to important state legislative bills, amendments and
developments.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria
with a maximum possible point total of:
Method of Approach (0-450 points);
Experience and Qualifications (0-325 points); and
Price (0-225 points).
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendors:
Highground, Inc. - 838 points
Dorn Policy Group, Inc. - 794 points
Page 57
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2023 for a two-year term with three one-
year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $1,574,575.20.
Funding is available in the Office of Government Relations' budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 58
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
49135)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148572 with Bluetriton Brands, Inc., dba Readyrefresh for
the purchase of bottled water and associated products for Citywide use. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $310,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the City with bottled water and related products where a
water supply is not readily accessible to help prevent heat-related illnesses for Police
Officers, Firefighters, and other City employees and residents. Bottled water is also
used at public gatherings and City-funded public events. The primary user
departments of this contract are Aviation, Fire, Police, and Water Services. This
contract is critical to the safety and health of the City's employees and residents by
helping prevent heat-related issues, especially during the City's hotter months of the
year.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Oct. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $310,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $974,223. Funds are available in various departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Bottled Water and Associated Products - Contract 148572 - Ordinance S-44997 on
Sept. 19, 2018;
• Bottled Water and Associated Products - Contract 148572 - Ordinance S-00019-AF
on Sept. 16, 2020;
• Bottled Water and Associated Products - Contract 148572 - Ordinance S-47868 on
Aug. 25, 2021.
Page 59
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 60
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
006 Request for Award (Ordinance S-49142)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Accounting & Finance Professionals, Inc.; ADK Consulting, Inc.; Affion Public, LLC;
Cizek Associates, Inc.; Colin Baezinger & Associates; Smith Temporaries dba
CornerStone Staffing; Cooperative Personnel Services dba CPS HR Consulting;
GovHR USA, LLC; POLIHIRE Strategy Corp; Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.;
Ralph Andersen & Associates, Inc.;Talent Advisory Group, LLC; and WBPC, Inc. to
provide executive and middle-manager search and recruitment services for the Human
Resources Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $750,000.
Summary
On an as-needed basis, the Contractors will work with the Human Resources
Department's Talent Acquisition Division to conduct search and recruitment processes
to fill executive and/or middle-manager positions in one or more City departments. The
Contractors will conduct comprehensive searches and actively recruit diverse
applicants with exceptional qualifications from the national talent market, They will
assess and identify the most highly qualified candidates to the City hiring authority,
facilitate interview processes for top candidates, and coordinate background and
reference checks for selected candidates.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).
25 offerors submitted qualifications, and 13 were deemed to be responsive and
responsible. Procurement and Talent Acquisition staff evaluated those offers based on
the following minimum qualifications:
Offeror must have been in the business of conducting executive-level recruitments for
at least five years.
Offeror must have experience conducting executive-level recruitments for cities,
states, and/or other localities with populations over 200,000 residents.
Page 61
Offeror must have the ability and staff to complete the project objectives listed in this
solicitation.
Procurement recommends award to the following offerors:
Accounting & Finance Professionals, Inc.
ADK Consulting, Inc.
Affion Public, LLC
Cizek Associates, Inc.
Colin Baezinger & Associates
Smith Temporaries dba: CornerStone Staffing
Cooperative Personnel Services dba: CPS HR Consulting
GovHR USA, LLC
POLIHIRE Strategy Corp
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Ralph Andersen & Associates, Inc.
Talent Advisory Group, LLC
WBPC, Inc.
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Nov. 2, 2022, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $750,000.
Funding is available in the various departments' operating budgets that will utilize the
contracts.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 62
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
OCT. 12, 2022) - Phoenix Park Ranger Program
On Oct. 10, 2022 Councilwoman Ann O'Brien, Councilman Jim Waring, Councilwoman
Debra Stark and Councilman Sal DiCiccio submitted a request (Attachment A) to the
City Manager to place an item on the Oct. 12, 2022 Formal City Council agenda. The
request is for the City Council to consider a vote to immediately place additional
security services in the Phoenix park system. The item titled Phoenix Park Ranger
Update was originally scheduled for discussion and possible action by the Community
and Cultural Investment Subcommittee on Oct. 5, 2022 and was withdrawn
(Attachment B).
This request is in compliance with Rule 2(c) of the Rules of Council Proceedings.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton.
Page 63
Inger Erickson,
To: Date: November 2, 2022
Deputy City Manager
Cynthia Aguilar,
From:
Parks and Recreation Director
ITEM 26 – PHOENIX PARK RANGER PROGRAM ADDITIONAL
Subject:
INFORMATION
This report provides additional information regarding staff efforts to address the
continued item regarding the Phoenix Park Ranger program and proposed security
services pilot program and related requests from the Oct. 12, 2022 Formal Council
Meeting.
BACKGROUND
An item titled Phoenix Park Ranger Update was originally scheduled for discussion and
possible action by the Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee on Oct. 5,
2022. This item was withdrawn to allow staff time to perform further research and
analysis as requested by subcommittee members.
On Oct. 10, 2022, Councilwoman Ann O’Brien, Councilman Jim Waring, Councilwoman
Debra Stark and Councilman Sal DiCiccio submitted a request to the City Manager to
place this item on the Oct. 12, 2022 Formal City Council agenda for the City Council to
consider a vote to immediately place additional security services in the Phoenix park
system. This item was continued to the Nov. 2, 2022 Formal City Council Agenda.
DISCUSSION
Direction Received
At the Oct. 12 Formal City Council Meeting, staff was directed to return with a holistic
pilot program ensuring security and safety in City parks and to work with each Council
office during the continuance to ensure all voices are heard to create a well thought out
plan. During the continuance, staff performed additional research to further the
development of a pilot program and actively worked to meet with each Council Office to
gather feedback on the potential pilot program.
Current Ranger Program
The Parks and Recreation Department Natural Resources Division houses the City’s
Park Ranger program. Phoenix Park Rangers are divided into two related yet distinct
assignments: (1) rangers assigned to the mountain preserves and (2) rangers assigned
to urban parks. There are 88 full-time Park Rangers and 11 part-time Park Rangers
throughout the park system. At the time of this report, there are 15 Park Ranger
vacancies: two on the urban team and 13 on the mountain preserve ranger team.
Park Rangers assigned to urban parks support the City’s urban park system, which
consist of 185 flatland parks and designated bike paths and pedestrian tunnels
throughout the City. Rangers assist in the proactive education and enforcement of the
public on a daily basis, addressing the Code of Conduct Policy as well as other common
issues such as loitering in the park after hours, illegal vending, shopping carts, dogs off-
leash, smoking, drugs and paraphernalia, and unattended belongings. Rangers monitor
and enforce park rules, regulations and ordinances related to City park use and educate
park patrons not complying with these rules. Criminal citations for violation of City Code
ordinances or trespass notices through the Parks and Recreation Department's Code of
Conduct are issued when necessary. Rangers also assist park users with various
questions and requests and perform educational programming activities. Less than a
quarter of all public contacts made by Park Rangers are Code of Conduct related.
Ranger patrol coverage is seven days a week from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Park Rangers assigned to the urban parks include one Park Supervisor, one Park
Manager, four Park Ranger III supervisors and 24 full-time Park Ranger IIs. A total of
eight of the 24 Park Ranger II positions were added during the Fiscal Year 2022-23
budget process. When fully staffed, six Park Ranger IIs will cover the morning shift from
4 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and six Ranger IIs will cover the afternoon shift from 12:30 p.m. to
11 p.m. During a typical shift, this equates to having a total of six Park Rangers who ride
in pairs patrolling 185 parks throughout the city.
The Parks Rangers are an integral part of the PHX Community Action Response
Engagement Services (CARES) initiative, which focuses on efforts to reduce the impact
of homelessness in the City and addresses resident concerns related to unsheltered
individuals in neighborhoods. Rangers work with police and Community Bridges, Inc.
(CBI) staff on coordinated outreach opportunities utilizing a strategic approach that
identifies priority patrols via input from Parks and Recreation Department staff
throughout the City and Phoenix Police Department service calls. Ranger patrols afford
the opportunity to increase direct contact with individuals requiring services and the
ability to immediately provide information directly to the PHX CARES program and other
City departments, including Police, Human Services, Neighborhood Services and Street
Transportation.
The presence of Park Rangers helps improve guest satisfaction, as well as park safety,
attractiveness and usability. Objectives include maintaining safe and welcoming parks
for all residents and visitors. With Phoenix encompassing over 500 square miles and
185 urban parks, it continues to be challenging for Park Rangers to frequent parks in a
consistent manner.
Challenges in Phoenix Parks and Activation Efforts
Despite the efforts of the Phoenix Park Rangers to educate and enforce the Parks and
Recreation Department’s Code of Conduct, Phoenix parks and facilities still experience
significant challenges associated with illegal or negative behaviors. These behaviors
include, but are not limited to drug use, violent crimes, theft, trespassing, vandalized
and damaged park property and equipment, excessive littering and debris, and misuse
of park amenities. Many of these behaviors can be disruptive and pose health and
safety risks to the surrounding community. They can also cause damage requiring
costly repairs or complete reengineering of park amenities.
As a part of efforts to address these challenges, the Parks and Recreation Department
has sought to activate park spaces for positive behaviors and uses. These efforts are
aimed at engaging the local community, promoting the enjoyment of City parks and
facilities, and ensuring parks provide a welcoming and safe place for recreational
activities.
Moving forward Parks and Recreation staff will continue to work with Mayor and Council
to identify and implement additional park activation efforts to promote positive activities
in City parks. This will include farmers markets, food truck events, community events
and mobile recreation programming.
Current Security Services and Proposed Pilot
Although Park Ranger and activation efforts have assisted with reducing dangerous and
disruptive behaviors in Phoenix parks, they have been unable to address overnight
violations and illegal activity. Most City of Phoenix parks are closed between 10 p.m.
and 6 a.m. Urban Park Ranger coverage is only available from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m., as
their primary role is to engage with park users and perform educational activities and
necessary enforcement during park hours. In addition, park activation efforts are only
performed during regular park hours and are unable to address overnight challenges in
parks.
The Parks and Recreation Department currently utilizes security services provided by
Surveillance Security, Inc. in three parks, including Civic Space, Margaret T. Hance and
Heritage Square parks. All three parks use overnight roving security services from 10
p.m. to 6 a.m. each night. As a part of the City’s operating agreement for Civic Space
Park, security service patrols are also utilized from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to
10 p.m. Through the roving security model, security guards work in pairs and drive to
each park where they then get out on foot and patrol the park grounds. The security
presence has contributed to minimal issues with crime and vandalism in the three
participating parks.
To further support efforts to maintain clean, safe and accessible parks, the Parks and
Recreation Department has conducted preliminary research into the use of security
services in additional parks. In an effort to reduce negative behaviors, staff have
identified several parks that may benefit from enhanced measures, including but not
limited to after-hours security, based on a combination of criteria. These criteria include
the number of Park Ranger visits and the number and types of Code of Conduct
violations and trespass notices issued throughout the City, as well as in each Council
District. Below are three options for consideration.
Option 1: Top eight parks citywide based on identified criteria.
Park Council District
Cortez 1
Washington 5
Pierce 8
Cielito 4
El Oso 5
Perry 8
Cesar Chavez 7
Maryvale 5
Option 2: Top eight parks based on identified criteria in each Council District.
Park Council District
Cortez 1
Paradise Valley 2
Sunnyslope 3
Cielito 4
Washington 5
Los Olivos 6
Cesar Chavez 7
Pierce 8
Option 3: Top eight parks citywide based on identified criteria and parks with
greatest need in City Council Districts without a park in the top eight.
Park Council District
Cortez 1
Washington 5
Pierce 8
Cielito 4
El Oso 5
Perry 8
Cesar Chavez 7
Maryvale 5
Sunnyslope 3
Paradise Valley 2
Los Olivos 6
As part of a six-month pilot program, security services would be provided seven days a
week at the identified parks between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 a.m. Security guards
would be assigned to rove between two to three park locations and would perform
duties such as patrolling the park, educating the public about park rules, addressing
Code of Conduct violations by notifying Parks and Recreation staff, opening and closing
restroom facilities and/or park gates where applicable, ensuring the park is clear of
users upon park closure, relaying information to PHX CARES, contacting Park Rangers
for assistance, and calling Phoenix Police for emergency purposes or crimes occurring
within the park.
Once the final list of parks to be included in the pilot program has been identified, staff
will work with the current security provider, Surveillance Security Inc. to determine patrol
routes and final costs. Based on staffing availability of the current security provider, it is
estimated that it would take between four and six weeks for the pilot program to begin.
During the pilot, staff will also work to identify other security providers who may have
additional tools to safely provide services in parks.
Halfway through the six-month pilot program, the Parks and Recreation Department will
engage with the communities surrounding the participating parks to share information
on the results of the security services and to obtain community feedback on the
program.
Outreach Services
To support individuals in or around the parks, if the pilot security services program is
approved, the Parks and Recreation Department will work with the Office of Homeless
Solutions to return to the City Council with a plan to add additional outreach services
focusing on behavior health outreach. These services would include two teams of two
individuals who would be focused on connecting individuals to the appropriate
behavioral health services during and after park hours.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has met with each City Council Office as directed to ensure all voices were heard
and, based on that information, recommends implementation of a six-month security
services pilot program in select parks. Additionally, staff seeks City Council
authorization to amend the existing contract with Surveillance Security, Inc. for an
additional amount up to $800,000 to deliver these services. The final cost will depend
on the number and location of parks selected for the pilot program. Funding is available
in the Parks and Recreation Department budget.
Attachment A
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Tech Innovation Grant Agreements (Ordinance S-49141)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreements: 157264-0 with Homer Farms and 157263-0 with YoBro Farms to increase
grant funding. Further request to authorize City Controller to disburse all funds related
to these items. Funding is available through the City's allocation of American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) funding and is in the Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the
ARPA Strategic Plan approved by the Mayor and Council. There is no impact to the
General Fund. The expenditures will not exceed $86,870.
Summary
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP)
developed a food assistance plan to address the food needs of vulnerable populations
and communities impacted by COVID-19. The plan provides: 1) access to healthy
foods for impacted populations; 2) infrastructure assistance regarding transportation
and delivery with a focus on home delivery; 3) support for food banks, food pantries
and community food agencies; 4) support for increased local food production; and 5)
business and employment opportunities throughout the food system spectrum.
Economic Development and Innovation
Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grant Program
The Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grant program is designed to encourage
existing entrepreneurs, businesses, non-profits, educational institutions, and
sustainable food cooperatives across the entire food system to address challenges
associated with the impact of COVID-19. Agri-food technology are innovative tools and
solutions created within the food supply chain to improve the food and agriculture
industry.
Due to a prior grant awardee declining grant funding, an additional $86,870 is
available. The additional funding would be awarded to the next highest scored
applicants in the evaluation process, which are Homer Farms and YoBro Farms. Both
awardees only received a portion of their total grant request due to the total amount of
funding available. Homer Farms' grant award will increase from $35,000 to $98,268
and YoBro Farms will increase from $32,098 to $55,700.
Page 70
Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10 to implement and administer programs intended to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contract Term
The contract term for Homer Farms and YoBro Farms will remain as stated in the
original agreements.
All agreements may be extended based on available funding, which extensions may
be executed by the City Manager, or his designee.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's
allocation of ARPA funding and is in the Phoenix Resilient Food System category of
the ARPA Strategic Plan approved by Mayor and Council.
The funding breakdown is as follows:
Homer Farms - The initial authorization was for $35,000. This first amendment will
increase the authorization by $63,268 for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value
of $98,268.
YoBro Farms - The initial authorization was for $32,098. This first amendment will
increase the authorization by $23,602 for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value
of $55,700.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
The ARPA Strategic Plan on June 8, 2021;
ARPA Agri-Food Technology Innovation Grants (Ordinance S-48802) on June 15,
2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Karen Peters and the Office of Environmental Programs.
Page 71
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Birth to Five and Early Head Start Home Programs (Ordinance S-49125)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to lease real property from
Calvary United Methodist Church for the City of Phoenix Head Start Birth to Five
Program for 20 years plus two, five-year options to extend. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Human Services Department desires to lease real property at 7949 W. Indian
School Rd. from Calvary United Methodist Church (CUMC) to operate the City of
Phoenix Head Start Birth to Five Program (COPB5). Leasing will expand the program
by adding space for two full-day classrooms for up to 40 children, office space for
COPB5 programs, and a family resource center.
The main leased site includes two buildings with approximately 18,138 square feet
made up of offices, classrooms, a kitchen, three outdoor playgrounds, and 20 parking
spaces. Monthly base rent is $6,300, plus applicable taxes, which is within market rent
as determined by the Finance Department's Real Estate Division. Base rent will be
increased annually by one and one-half percent and adjusted every five years to the
then market rent.
The main leased site will be renovated pursuant to the Arizona Department of Health
Services, Child Care Licensing and the Head Start Program Performance Standards
requirements and the operational needs of the COPB5 program by utilizing funds
allocated to the City from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of Head Start. During renovation of the main leased site, the City will lease an
approximate 3,534 square foot annex building for six months with six, one-month
options to extend, to begin outreach and administrative functions related to the
opening of the COPB5 programs and family resource center. Monthly base rent for the
annex building is $2,300, plus applicable taxes, which is within market rent as
determined by the Finance Department's Real Estate Division. The City may
periodically lease the annex building on a short-term basis, as needed, and as
available when occupying the main leased site. The rental rate during any extension
period of the annex building will be based on the market rate as determined at that
Page 72
time.
The City will be responsible for operating and maintenance costs, and CUMC will be
responsible for structural repairs. The lease may be canceled pursuant to ARS 38-511,
or upon 365-day written notification by the City. The lease may contain other terms and
conditions acceptable to the City based on use. The lease will include insurance and
indemnification provisions acceptable to the City's Risk Management Division and Law
Department.
Contract Term
The term of the main leased site, beginning on or about Jan. 1, 2023, will be for a 20-
year period with two additional five-year options to extend. The initial term of the annex
building will be six months with six, one-month options to extend.
Financial Impact
Annual rent for the main leased site during the initial year is $75,600, plus applicable
taxes, to be abated for the first six months of the lease during renovations and
occupancy of the annex building. Rent during the six-month term for the annex space
is $13,800, plus applicable taxes. Funds are available through the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Head Start, allocated through the Human
Services Department.
Location
7949 W. Indian School Rd., identified by Maricopa County Assessor parcel number
102-66-127C.
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
and Finance departments.
Page 73
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Waste Management Facility Public Art Project (Ordinance S-49140)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
artist Katherine Leigh Simpson (AZ), for an amount not to exceed $115,000 to work
with City staff and the project team to finalize design and oversee the installation of a
public art project that will be installed in two locations; first at the Phoenix Convention
Center temporarily and permanently at the 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management
facility at 3060 S. 27th Ave. in Phoenix. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Fiscal Year 2022-27 Public Art Project Plan includes a project to commission an
artist to create artworks from materials commonly found in the City's recycling stream
to increase awareness about recycling and resource management by introducing new
ways to use materials.
On May 2, 2022, local artist Katherine Leigh Simpson commissioned from a pool of 64
artists who had responded to a City-issued Request for Qualifications. The artist was
selected based on her experience working with recycled materials and her potential to
create impactful work to raise awareness of single use plastics during a high traffic
time in the Phoenix Convention Center in February of 2023.
Under this contract, the artist will finalize the design and fabricate and install the
artwork for a temporary period of time at the Phoenix Convention Center. The artist will
also develop an adapted installation plan to relocate the artwork to its permanent
installation location at the 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management Facility.
Financial Impact
The 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management Facility public art project is one of 39
projects in the Fiscal Year 2022-27 Public Art Project Plan that City Council approved
on June 15, 2022. The Art Plan includes $222,568 for this project. The proposed
$115,000 design and construction contract will cover all costs for the artist working with
the Office of Arts and Culture and the 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management Facility
staff to finalize the design, fabricate and install the artwork temporarily at the Phoenix
Page 74
Convention Center and permanently at the 27th Avenue Solid Waste Management
Facility. The percent-for-art funds for this project come from Public Works Department
Solid Waste Capital Improvement Program.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended
approval of this item at its Oct. 11, 2022, meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Office of Arts
and Culture.
Page 75
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to join as a Tier 2 ("no cost")
member of a regional Hydrogen Hub consortium led by the Center for an Arizona
Carbon-Neutral Economy and participate in the consortium as an advisory committee
member. The consortium consists of a number of Tier 1 members, those members
making financial contributions, however, the City's Tier 2 membership would be at no
cost to the City.
Summary
Arizona State University ("ASU") launched the Center for an Arizona Carbon-Neutral
Economy (the "Center") to provide strategic guidance, thought leadership, research
and initial project management to help Arizona and the Southwest region develop the
needed infrastructure, systems and networks to move the state toward a carbon-
neutral economy by mid-century. One of its initial programs is formation of a "Hydrogen
Projects" consortium of regional partners including ASU, Salt River Project (“SRP”),
Arizona Public Service (“APS”), Tucson Electric Power (“TEP”), University of Arizona
(“UArizona”), Northern Arizona University (“NAU”) and Southwest Gas Corporation
(“SWG”) seeking to leverage federal and state investments to incubate development of
low-carbon hydrogen projects in the region. The founding partners provided the initial
funding for the Center of $650,000 and have committed to provide ongoing funding as
projects develop.
The City of Phoenix was invited to join the consortium as a Tier 2 no cost member of
the Center and participate on the advisory committee to provide input on the hydrogen
projects’ goals, objectives, and other activities related to hydrogen projects.
Staff recommend participation in the advisory committee to help attract federal
investments to the region, represent the needs of the City in projects incubated at the
Center and to help spur a local hydrogen economy that could fuel transportation,
generate low-carbon electricity and reduce carbon emissions in the regional overall.
Contract Term
Participation in the advisory committee will be ongoing, however, the City is free to
resign from the committee in the future if its value to the City diminishes.
Page 76
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Office of
Sustainability.
Page 77
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Arizona Council
Request City Council approval of the updated Local Workforce Development Plan for
Program Years 2020-2024 and authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to
submit the approved plan to the Workforce Arizona Council before Nov. 10, 2022.
Summary
As provided in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Section 20 CFR
§ 679.580 (b) at the end of the first two-year period of the four-year local plan, each
Local Workforce Development Board (LWDB), in partnership with the chief elected
officials, must review the local plan and prepare and submit modifications.
As required by federal law, the City of Phoenix Local Workforce Development Area
Plan updates reflect labor market and economic conditions, and other factors affecting
the implementation of the local plan. These include: significant changes in local
economic conditions; changes in available financing to support WIOA Title I and
partner-provided WIOA services; changes to the Local Workforce Development Board
(LWDB) structure; and the need to revise strategies to meet local performance goals.
Revisions made to the Local Workforce Development Area Plan are as follows:
· Changes in Existing In-Demand Occupations (Pages 20 - 21)
· Updated Top 10 Employers in Phoenix (Page 25)
· Updated Business Size data (Page 27 - 28)
· Top Companies Posting data (Page 30 - 32)
· Job Posting information (Page 33)
· Changes in Advertised Salary (Page 34 - 35)
· Changes in Unique Postings by Education Level and Experience (Page 36 - 39)
· Updated Top Posted Occupations (Page 40 - 41)
· Updated Top Industries (Page 43 - 44)
· Updated Top Hard Skills and Top Common Skills (Page 45 - 46)
· Updated Demographics data (Page 49 - 50)
· Unemployment Rate information (Page 52 - 54)
· Educational Attainment information (Page 57)
·
Page 78
· Total Graduate data (Page 58 - 59)
· Financing, Structure, and Strategies (Pages 82 - 90)
A full copy of the Local Workforce Development Area Plan, with the changes
referenced above highlighted, can be viewed at:
https://arizonaatwork.com/sites/default/files/2022_UpdatedLocalPlan__City_of_Phoeni
x.pdf.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund as a result of this action.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The original 2020-2024 Local Workforce Development Area Plan was approved by City
Council on Aug. 26, 2020 and the Phoenix Business and Workforce Development
Board's Executive Leadership Committee approved the plan updates on May 12,
2022.
Public Outreach
The Local Workforce Development Area Plan was made available to the public
electronically, through social media platforms, and by other means such as open
meetings,local news media, the Community and Economic Development Department
administration office, Human Services Department administration office, and via the
ARIZONA@WORK Job Centers from May 17, 2022 through June 1, 2022. A full copy
of the updated Local Workforce Development Area Plan can be viewed at:
https://arizonaatwork.com/sites/default/files/2022_UpdatedLocalPlan__City_of_Phoeni
x.pdf
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manger Ginger Spencer and the Community and
Economic Development Department.
Page 79
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
University Project), Series 2022 (Resolution 22080)
Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Lease Revenue Refunding and
Lease Revenue Bonds (Rowan University Project), Series 2022, to be issued in one or
more tax-exempt and taxable series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$250,000,000.
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution granting approval of the proceedings
under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, AZ, (the
"Phoenix IDA") has previously resolved to issue up to $250,000,000 of Lease Revenue
Refunding and Lease Revenue Bonds (the "Revenue Bonds") for use by MACQ - New
Jersey I, LLC (the "Borrower"), a Delaware limited liability company, to
a) currently refund outstanding taxable refunding bonds, the proceeds of which were
used to refinance acquisition, construction, and equipping of student housing,
administrative offices, and a bookstore adjacent to the campus of Rowan University in
Glassboro, New Jersey,
b) finance the costs of Rowan University acquiring the project, and
c) pay certain costs related to the overall issuance of the Revenue Bonds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Revenue Bonds at its
meeting held on Oct. 20, 2022.
Location
The Project is located adjacent to Rowan University's main campus located at 201
Mullica Hill Road, in Glassboro, New Jersey.
With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.
Page 80
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer.
Page 81
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Backlog Reduction Grant Program (Ordinance S-49137)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to amend Ordinance S-46888 to extend the agreement with the Bureau of
Justice Assistance for the 2020 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction
grant program for an amount not to exceed $576,673. Further request authorization for
the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item.
Summary
In August 2020, the City Council approved the agreement for the FY 2020 DNA
Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction grant program in the amount of
$576,673 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The purpose of this grant was to
increase the capacity of public forensic DNA and DNA database laboratories to
process more samples. This will allow the Police Department to reduce the backlog. All
DNA profiles will be entered into the Combined DNA Index System and loaded into the
National DNA Index System.
Funding from the FY 2020 grant will be used to process, record, screen, and analyze
forensic DNA and/or DNA database samples.
Contract Term
The current term of this grant agreement, from Oct. 1, 2020 through Sept. 30, 2022,
will be extended through Sept. 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required and no additional funds are awarded.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 82
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Assistance Grant (Ordinance S-49138)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to amend Ordinance S-46077 to extend the agreement with the Bureau of
Justice Assistance and Intergovernmental Agreements with Maricopa County and the
City of Mesa, for the 2019 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for
an amount not to exceed $1,035,907. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item.
Summary
In October 2019, the City Council approved the agreement for the FY 2019 Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG), in the amount of $1,035,907 from the
Bureau of Justice Assistance and Intergovernmental Agreements with Maricopa
County and the City of Mesa. The JAG application was submitted by the Police
Department on behalf of the City of Phoenix and eligible partnering agencies. In
addition to the City of Phoenix, requests were included for Maricopa County and the
City of Mesa. Approved allocations were City of Phoenix $902,024, Maricopa County
$10,000 and the City of Mesa $123,883 for a total of $1,035,907.
The City of Phoenix FY 2019 JAG allocations will fund $161,579 to the Parks and
Recreation Department for Project BRAVE (Bringing Reality About Violence Education)
and the remaining $740,445 will be used to purchase equipment for the Police
Department. Items included audio/video equipment, forensic equipment for the Crime
Laboratory, and personal protective equipment to augment investigations and crime
suppression.
Contract Term
The current term of this grant agreement from Oct. 1, 2018 through Sept. 30, 2022, will
be extended through Sept. 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required and no additional funds are awarded.
Page 83
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 84
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Administration for Reimbursement for Police Services (Ordinance S-49139)
Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the
Police Department to enter into agreements with the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) to accept funds in the amount of $19,840.75 per year, per officer, not to exceed
$396,815, for approved overtime. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer
to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department has participated in DEA task forces via similar agreements for
the past several years. The purpose of these task force groups is to disrupt the illegal
trafficking of drugs in the State of Arizona by immobilizing targeted violators and
trafficking organizations. The task force groups conduct undercover operations where
appropriate and engage in other traditional methods of investigation in an effort to
effectively prosecute offenders in federal and state courts. Through these agreements,
five experienced Phoenix police officers will continue to be assigned to the DEA
Phoenix Task Force. This agreement provides the City with reimbursement for the
officers' overtime related to task force investigations.
If authorization is denied, the agreement will be rescinded.
Contract Term
Oct. 1, 2022 through Sept. 30, 2026.
Financial Impact
The cost to the City is related fringe benefits and in-kind resources.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 85
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Crime Reduction Pilot Project Grant (Ordinance S-49143)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to amend Ordinance S-47579 to extend the agreement with the Arizona
Criminal Justice Commission for the Crime Reduction Pilot Project Grant for the
amount not to exceed $15,000. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
In May 2021, the City Council approved the agreement for the Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission Crime Reduction Pilot Project Grant, in the amount of $15,000 from the
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. The purpose of this grant, was to promote the
objectives of the Restructuring Area Dynamic and Relationships (RADAR) program.
This program concentrates on the social network theory and mismanaged properties,
to reduce calls for service and crime rates instead of arrests and prosecutions,
seizures of contraband, and serving of search warrants. The objective is to identify
high crime areas and related properties attracting high calls for service and work with
the property owners to combat property damage and crime.
Contract Term
The current term of this grant agreement from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, will
be extended through Dec. 30, 2022.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required and no additional funds are awarded.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 86
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
to Permit, Govern Access and Use by City of Phoenix to the East Valley Bus
Operations and Maintenance Facility for Airport-Owned Bus Fueling and
Washing (Ordinance S-49127)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Tempe (Tempe) to permit and
govern access and use by the City of Phoenix (Phoenix) to Tempe's East Valley Bus
Operations and Maintenance Facility (EVBOM) for fueling and washing Aviation-owned
buses that provide service on-site at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Airport).
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the IGA will not exceed $98,000.
Summary
The PHX Sky Train is considered a must-ride system because it connects to the
Rental Car Center, terminals, economy parking structures, and the region's Metro light
rail system. Operation, regular maintenance, and fueling are required for the Aviation-
owned bus fleet to support and facilitate the timely movement of passengers during an
emergency activation of the Airport's contingency plan and in the event of a Sky Train
interruption or scheduled maintenance activities. The Aviation Department plans on
retaining a smaller contingent of its current bus fleet for the support of the PHX Sky
Train in case of such events.
The on-airport Clean Energy fueling station currently provides fuel to the Airport's bus
fleet. The fueling station is scheduled to be demolished once the Sky Train is fully
operational. Because of its proximity to the Airport, Tempe's EVBOM will provide the
Airport with the opportunity to fuel and wash the bus contingency fleet once the fueling
station is no longer operational. Phoenix will pay a cost per gallon for fuel dispensed, a
per-bus wash fee, and a monthly cost sharing fee for the use of the EVBOM.
Contract Term
The contract term will be for five (5) years with three (3) one-year options to extend for
an aggregate eight-year term.
Financial Impact
Page 87
The IGA value will not exceed $98,000 for the eight-year aggregate contract term.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Operating budget.
Location
City of Tempe
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 88
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
S-49128)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
AssetWorks, Inc. to provide software maintenance for the M5 fleet asset management
system. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This contract will have an aggregate value of $436,765.
Summary
The Public Works Department uses the AssetWorks M5 fleet asset management
system as the system of record for approximately 7,800 citywide fleet vehicles and
equipment, excluding the Public Transit and Aviation departments. This system is
essential to manage vehicle maintenance records throughout the life of the asset from
acquisition, including all maintenance activities, until the vehicle is salvaged. The
Public Works Department has used AssetWorks since 2002 and has more than 15
years of data recorded in the system. AssetWorks is used worldwide for fleet
maintenance to capture and record vehicle activities.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10 normal competition was waived via
a determination memo citing sole source. AssetWorks is the manufacturer of the M5
fleet asset management system.
Contract Term
This contract will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2022 for an initial two-year contract term,
with one option year for a total contract term of three years.
Financial Impact
This item will have an estimated annual expenditure of $145,588 with a total aggregate
value of $436,765.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 89
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 90
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-49121)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
RW Staffing Solutions, LLC to provide Environmental Project Specialists in the area of
natural and cultural resource environmental consulting for the Street Transportation
and Parks and Recreation departments. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract shall
not exceed $2,000,000.
Summary
The Street Transportation Department has a current contract to provide Environmental
Project Specialists to the Environmental Services Section as well as to the Parks and
Recreation Department. The current contract will expire on Dec. 31, 2022.
The new contract will replace the existing contract and services will include assistance
in facilitating the management of the environmental and archaeological aspects of pre-
design, design, construction, operations and maintenance projects being conducted by
and through the Street Transportation and Parks and Recreation departments with the
intent of achieving full compliance with applicable environmental and archaeological
regulations.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was conducted in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
One vendor submitted a proposal deemed to be responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated the offer based on the following criteria
with a maximum possible point total of 1000:
Experience, Knowledge, Background (100)
Professional Qualification Standards (300)
Project Coordination (100)
Familiarity with Regulatory Agencies (200)
Staff Availability (100)
Page 91
Service Capability (100)
Price (100)
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:
RW Staffing Solutions, LLC
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.
Financial Impact
The total contract value will not exceed $2,000,000.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation and Parks and Recreation
departments' budgets.
Responsible Departments
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson
and the Street Transportation and Parks and Recreation departments.
Page 92
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
On-Call Services for Calendar Years 2023-24 (Ordinance S-49122)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the eight consultants on Attachment A to provide Environmental /
Natural-Cultural Resources / National Environmental Policy Act On-Call services
citywide. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for
services will not exceed $6 million aggregate.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas; telecommunications; cable
television; railroads; and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Environmental /
Natural-Cultural Resources / National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) services that
include, but are not limited to: NEPA documentation and related supporting technical
analysis and reports, cultural resources, biology and natural resources, Rivers and
Harbors Act, Clean Water Act, air quality and noise, green infrastructure, and
evaluation.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
Page 93
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Fourteen firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to two years, or up to a total of $6 million aggregate,
whichever occurs first, with an option to extend each contract for one additional year.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The total value for the On-Call consultant agreements will not exceed $6 million
aggregate, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for
services under the eight agreements will not exceed $6 million aggregate.
Funding is available in the Capital Improvement Program and Operating budgets of the
various City departments that will utilize these agreements. The agreements will be
managed by the Street Transportation Department Office of the City Engineer's
Environmental Services Division. The Budget and Research Department will review
and approve funding availability prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of
$100,000 or more. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered
agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 94
ATTACHMENT A
Selected Firms
Rank 1: AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc.
Rank 2: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Rank 3: SWCA, Incorporated dba SWCA Environmental Consultants
Rank 4: Westland Resources, Inc.
Rank 5: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 6: Logan Simpson Design Inc.
Rank 7: EcoPlan Associates, Inc.
Rank 8: Desert Archaeology, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 9: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Rank 10: Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc.
Rank 11: Transcon Environmental, Inc.
Rank 12: BEC Environmental, Inc.
Rank 13: North Wind Resources Consulting, LLC
Rank 14: Grouse Mountain Environmental Consultants, LLC
Page 95
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Transportation Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Year 2022 - Federal
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (Ordinance S-49136)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept and, if
awarded, enter into agreements for disbursement of federal funding from the U.S.
Department of Transportation through the Federal Fiscal Year 2022 Strengthening
Mobility and Revolutionary Transportation grant opportunity. If awarded, the funding
will be used to initiate planning level demonstration/pilot projects to validate emerging
technology in support of safer transportation infrastructure. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. Funding for these grant opportunities is available through the
Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The total grant funds applied for will not exceed
$2 million, and there is no participating local match required as a part of this grant
submittal.
Summary
On Sept. 30, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a Notice of Funding
Opportunity for $100 million nationwide under the Strengthening Mobility and
Revolutionary Transportation (SMART) Grants Program. Newly established by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the SMART grant offers an opportunity to partner with
academia and the private sector to explore technology interventions to solve real-world
challenges facing communities.
There are two funding opportunities through a planning, demonstration/pilot grant
(Stage 1) or an implementation grant (Stage 2). At this time, only Stage 1 grants are
allowed. It is expected that Stage 2 grants would begin in fiscal year (FY) 2023.
Successful grants will seek to build sustainable partnerships across sectors and levels
of government as well as industry, academia, non-profits and other traditional and non-
traditional partners.
A few SMART Grant Program priorities include the following:
· Safety and reliability - to improve the safety of systems for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and the broader traveling public.
Page 96
· Resiliency - to increase the reliability and resiliency of the transportation system,
including cyber-security and resiliency to climate change.
· Equity and access - to connect or expand access for underserved or disadvantaged
populations while improving access to jobs, education, and essential services.
· Climate - to reduce congestion and/or air pollution, including greenhouse gases or
improving energy efficiency.
· Partnerships - to contribute to economic competitiveness and incentivize private
sector investments or partnerships, including technical and financial commitments
on the proposed solution.
· Integration - to improve integration of systems and promote connectivity of
infrastructure, connected vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the broader traveling
public.
The City's SMART grant will focus on building data and technology capacity and
expertise. Technology investment is most beneficial when it is tailored to the
community needs. The City will work to submit a Stage 1 grant application that will
focus on emerging technology in support of creating or maintaining safer transportation
infrastructure. Staff will partner with local universities to identify and evaluate the latest
and greatest technology, methodology, or systems that are being pursued nationally to
see if they are appropriate for our region. The goal will be to identify a process or
system that can be implemented within current systems or applications to enhance the
overall safety benefit.
The SMART grant submittal deadline is Nov. 18, 2022.
Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $2 million. The maximum
federal participation for a Stage 1 planning, demonstration/pilot grant submittal is 100
percent. There is no minimum local match under a Stage 1 planning,
demonstration/pilot grant submittal.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 97
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
WS85500455 & WS90500307 (Ordinance S-49120)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 153381 with Wilson Engineers, LLC to provide additional design and
construction administration and inspection services for the Northwest Wastewater
Master Plan project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional fee for services included in this amendment will not exceed
$4,662,769.51.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to study the project area to determine the water and
wastewater infrastructure needed to plan for potential growth. Wilson Engineers, LLC
(Wilson) will work with the City to evaluate and plan the long-term location and size of
the infrastructure.
This amendment is necessary to add design and construction administration services
for Package 4 of the Northwest Wastewater Master Plan project. This amendment will
provide additional funds to the agreement.
Wilson's additional services include, but are not limited to: design and construction
administration and inspection services for two 24-inch force mains and a 36-inch
gravity sewer along the proposed 51st Avenue alignment from Lift Station 77 to the
existing 36-inch gravity sewer at 47th Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road.
Contract Term
The amendment will extend the term of the contract by one year, to on or about Feb.
21, 2026. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end
of the term may be agreed to by the parties. No additional changes may be executed
after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for an amount not to
Page 98
exceed $10,000,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $5,000,000, for a new
total amount not to exceed $15,000,000, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 153381 (Ordinance S-47069) on Nov. 18, 2020.
Location
North of the Central Arizona Project, south of Carefree Highway, west of I-17, and east
of the City's west limits.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 99
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
315 (Ordinance S-49130)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
SPX Flow US, LLC, James, Cooke, & Hobson, Inc. and Doane and Hartwig Water
Systems, Inc. to provide various mixers, parts, accessories, maintenance and repair
services on an as-needed basis for the Water Services Department. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the agreement will not exceed $270,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to supply various mixers, parts, accessories,
maintenance and repair services on an as-needed basis for the Water Services
Department. The Department operates eight water treatment plants to provide drinking
water and wastewater services to the City. These treatment facilities use specialized
mechanical equipment to mix chemicals to safely treat source waters for public
consumption and treat wastewater from Phoenix and several surrounding cities for
agriculture and electrical generating stations. This process is done while also meeting
all applicable environmental standards.
Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 2122-WPP-315 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.
Three bids were received and deemed responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation, the
procurement officer recommends awarding contracts to the following bidders:
· SPX Flow US, LLC
· James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. and
· Doane and Hartwig Water Systems, Inc.
Contract Term
The agreements will begin on or about Nov. 16, 2022, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Page 100
Financial Impact
The agreement value will not exceed $270,000 for the five-year aggregate term.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department
Page 101
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Kierland Boulevard
Plat: 210089
Project: 20-3541
Name of Plat: Kierland Commerce South - Lot 1
Owner: The Related Group
Engineer: A.L. Slater, RLS
Request: Nov. 2, 2022
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 7, 2022
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of Greenway Parkway and Kierland
Boulevard
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 102
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Application Z-59-A-13-1 (Metrocenter PUD) - Approximately 605 Feet South of the
Southeast Corner of 28th Drive and Peoria Avenue (Ordinance G-7044)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from PUD (Planned Unit Development) and RSC (Regional Shopping Center) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) as a major amendment to the Metrocenter Planned Unit
Development to allow commercial and residential uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: PUD (130.77 acres) and RSC (13.19 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD (143.96 acres)
Acreage: 143.96 acres
Proposed Use: A major amendment to the Metrocenter Planned Unit Development to
allow commercial and residential uses.
Owner: Realm Pennant Retail Partners, LLC, et al.
Applicant: Steve Sirang, Concord Wilshire Capital, LLC
Representative: Kurt Waldier, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept.
21, 2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-1
-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 605 feet south of the southeast corner of 28th Drive and Peoria Avenue
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: Various
Responsible Department
Page 103
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 104
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 (Z-59-A-13-1) FROM PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) AND RSC (REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER)
TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 143.96-acre site located approximately 605
feet south of the southeast corner of 28th Drive and Peoria Avenue, in a portion of
Section 26, Township 3 North, and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from 130.77 acres of “PUD” (Planned Unit Development)
and 13.19 acres of “RSC” (Regional Shopping Center) to 143.96 acres of “PUD”
(Planned Unit Development).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 105
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Metrocenter PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with Hearing Draft date stamped
September 1, 2022 as modified by the following stipulations.
a. Front Cover: Add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date].”
b. Page 48, Section G. Development Standards, Sub-Point 3: Modify the first
paragraph to read as follows: “Before any building, project, or use is
processed for site plan approval by the City, a shaded and segregated
pedestrian circulation plan shall be prepared and incorporated in this PUD
as an appendix, and shall detail access to the following where applicable:”
c. Page 48, Section G. Development Standards, Sub-Point 4: Modify to read
as follows: Individual project site plans shall be required to incorporate or
update the Master Trail Plan / Shaded and Segregated Pedestrian
Circulation Plan as necessary to provide access to the above, as
administratively approved by the Planning and Development Director.
Updates to the Master Trail Plan / Shaded and Segregated Pedestrian
Circulation Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department as a “Minor Amendment” to the PUD.
d. Appendix: Add the Shaded and Segregated Pedestrian Circulation Plan as
an appendix.
e. Table of Contents and Page 58: Before the Infrastructure Standards
Section add a Complete Streets Section in the PUD. The Complete Streets
Section shall specifically address PUD standards that improve
convenience and comfort, connectivity, sustainability, and green
infrastructure.
2. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
3. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
4. The developer shall submit an updated Traffic Impact Analysis report for every
new development within the PUD, or as otherwise approved by the Street
Page 106
Transportation Department. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted
until the study has been reviewed and approved by the City.
5. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report for every new
development within the PUD to include non-automotive network enhancements in
support of the City’s adopted Complete Streets Ordinance, as required by the
Street Transportation Department. Non-automotive network enhancements
include, but are not limited to, infrastructure improvements for: pedestrian safe
crossings, bicycle infrastructure and access to transit facilities. No preliminary
approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed and
approved by the City.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
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 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
Page 107
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (7 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 108
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-59-A-13-1
DESCRIPTION
METROCENTER PARCELS FOR REZONING APN'S 149-16-001A, 001B, 001C, 001D,
002A, 002B, 002C, 002E, 002F, 005, 083, 083D, 083E, 084B, 085, 086A, 389, 401, &
PARCEL NO. 1:
A parcel of land located in the East half of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 2 East
of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of Metro Parkway East and 29th Avenue as shown on
the Plat Map of Dedication for Metrocenter, recorded in Book 163 of Maps, Page 37,
records of Maricopa County, Arizona, said Point of Beginning being the beginning of a
curve the center of which bears North 9 degrees 2 minutes 10 seconds West 1187.50;
THENCE Westerly along the centerline of said Metro Parkway East and the arc of said
curve through a central angle of 5 degrees 10 minutes 9 seconds an arc length of
107.14 feet;
THENCE South 9 degrees 53 minutes 1 seconds East 119.79 feet to the
North line of the South 81 feet of Tract 8 of said Plat Map of Dedication for Metrocenter;
THENCE South 78 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds West 295.60 feet along said South
line;
THENCE South 88 degrees 44 minutes 30 seconds West 137.29 feet to the North line
of the South 96 feet of said Tract 8;
THENCE South 89 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds West 568.43 feet along said North
line;
THENCE North 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 99.73 feet to the centerline of
Mission Lane as shown on said Plat Map of Dedication;
THENCE South 45 degrees 03 minutes 13 seconds West 30.19 feet along said
centerline to its intersection with the centerline of 31st Avenue as shown on said Plat
Map of Dedication being the beginning of a non-tangent curve the center of which bears
North 45 degrees 19 minutes 46 seconds 1282.00 feet;
THENCE Northerly along the centerline of said 31st Avenue and the arc of said curve
through a central angle of 11 degrees 40 minutes 47 seconds an arc length of 261.34
feet to the beginning of a compound curve having a radius of 1902.00 feet;
Page 109
THENCE Northerly along the centerline of said 31st Avenue and the arc of said curve
through a central angle of 24 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds an arc length of 813.31
feet to the beginning of a compound curve having a radius of 5188.71 feet;
THENCE Northerly along the centerline of said 31st Avenue and the arc of said curve
through a central angle of 8 degrees 33 minutes 22 seconds an arc length of 774.84
feet;
THENCE North 1 degree 50 minutes 00 seconds East 34.90 feet along the centerline of
said 31st Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Cheryl Drive as shown on said
Plat Map of Dedication and the beginning of a non-tangent curve the center of which
bears North 22 degrees 03 minutes 43 seconds East 550.00 feet;
THENCE Easterly along the centerline of said Cheryl Drive and the arc of said curve
through a central angle of 22 degrees 1 minute 22 seconds an arc length of 211.40 feet;
THENCE South 89 degrees 59 minutes 18 seconds East 48.59 feet along said
centerline to the beginning of a non-tangent curve the center of which bears South 89
degrees 59 minutes 37 seconds East 4932.71 feet;
THENCE Southerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 2 degrees 12
minutes 43 seconds an arc length of 190.43 feet;
THENCE North 87 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds East 267.50 feet to the centerline of
Metro Parkway West as shown on said Plat Map of Dedication and the beginning of a
non-tangent curve the center of which bears North
87 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds East 4665.21 feet;
THENCE Northerly along said centerline and the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 2 degrees 12 minutes 42 seconds an arc length of 180.08 feet to its
intersection with the centerline of said Cheryl Drive;
THENCE continuing along the centerline of said Metro Parkway West and along the arc
of said curve through a central angle of 8 degrees 30 minutes 0 seconds an arc length
of 692.10 feet to the beginning of a compound curve having a radius of 1378.50 feet;
THENCE Northerly along said centerline and along the arc of said compound curve
through a central angle of 17 degrees 14 minutes 57 seconds an arc length of 415.00
feet;
THENCE South 54 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds East 301.13 feet to the beginning of
a non-tangent curve to the right the center of which bears South 44 degrees 57 minutes
54 seconds East 675.00 feet;
THENCE Easterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 34 degrees 58
minutes 17 seconds an arc length of 412.00 feet to the beginning of a compound curve
having a radius of 1104.00 feet;
Page 110
THENCE Easterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 7 degrees 15
minutes 30 seconds an arc length of 139.86 feet;
THENCE North 6 degrees 51 minutes 19 seconds West 410.01 feet to the beginning of
a curve to the left having a radius of 22.00 feet;
THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 89
degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds an arc length of 34.35 feet;
THENCE North 6 degrees 19 minutes 13 seconds West 43.50 feet to the centerline of
Metro Parkway East and the beginning of a non-tangent curve the center of which bears
South 6 degrees 19 minutes 13 seconds East 1187.50 feet;
THENCE Easterly along said centerline and the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 5 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds an arc length of
115.60 feet;
THENCE South 0 degrees 44 minutes 33 seconds East 43.50 feet to the beginning of a
non-tangent curve the center of which bears South 0 degrees 44 minutes 33 seconds
East 22.00 feet;
THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 96
degrees 6 minutes 46 seconds an arc length of 36.90 feet;
THENCE South 6 degrees 51 minutes 19 seconds East 558. 77 feet to the beginning of
a curve to the left having a radius of 24.50 feet;
THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 79
degrees 52 minutes 57 seconds an arc length of 34.16 feet to the beginning of a
reverse curve having a radius of 936.50 feet;
THENCE Easterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 6 degrees 44
minutes 39 seconds an arc length of 110.23 feet to the beginning of a compound curve
having a radius of 507.50 feet;
THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 10
degrees 27 minutes 42 seconds an arc length of 92.66 feet;
THENCE North 6 degrees 51 minutes 20 seconds West 284.01 feet;
THENCE South 63 degrees 51 minutes 19 seconds East 236.27 feet;
THENCE South 26 degrees 8 minutes 41 seconds West 44.33 feet;
THENCE South 63 degrees 51 minutes 19 seconds East 112.14 feet;
THENCE South 51 degrees 22 minutes 12 seconds East 115.98 feet;
Page 111
THENCE South 55 degrees 44 minutes 19 seconds West 217.16 feet to the beginning
of a non-tangent curve the center of which bears South 43 degrees 16 minutes 46
seconds West 507.50 feet;
THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 13
degrees 43 minutes 37 seconds an arc length of 121.59 feet to the beginning of a
compound curve having a radius of 1127.50 feet;
THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 7 degrees
31 minutes 27 seconds an arc length of 148.06 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve
having a radius of 24.50 feet;
THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 83
degrees 26 minutes 57 seconds an arc length of 35.68 feet;
THENCE North 71 degrees 4 minutes 53 seconds East 335.72 feet to the centerline of
Metro Parkway East as shown on said Plat Map of Dedication and the beginning of a
non-tangent curve the center of which bears South 81 degrees 41 minutes 12 seconds
West 4665.21 feet;
THENCE Southerly along said centerline and the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 0 degrees 55 minutes 49 seconds an arc length of
75.75 feet;
THENCE South 75 degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds West 521.33 feet;
THENCE South 45 degrees 0 minutes 23 seconds West 386.00 feet;
THENCE South 0 degrees 0 minutes 23 seconds West 70.00 feet;
THENCE South 44 degrees 59 minutes 37 seconds East 35.00 feet;
THENCE South 45 degrees 0 minutes 23 seconds West 172.00 feet;
THENCE South 0 degrees 0 minutes 23 seconds West 46.07 feet;
THENCE South 44 degrees 59 minutes 37 seconds East 236.82 feet;
THENCE South 89 degrees 59 minutes 37 seconds East 46.07 feet;
THENCE North 45 degrees 00 minutes 23 seconds East 20.00 feet;
THENCE South 44 degrees 59 minutes 37 seconds East 15.00 feet;
THENCE North 45 degrees 0 minutes 23 seconds East 44.15 feet;
THENCE South 84 degrees 40 minutes 26 seconds East 640.21 feet to the centerline of
Metro Parkway East as shown on said Plat Map of Dedication and the beginning of a
Page 112
non-tangent curve the center of which bears North 86 degrees 51 minutes 19 seconds
West 4665.21 feet;
THENCE Northerly along said centerline and the arc of said curve through a central
angle of 6 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds an arc length of 531.54 feet;
THENCE South 90 degrees 0 minutes 0 seconds East 274.44 feet to the
Westerly right of way line of Interstate 17;
THENCE South 0 degrees 16 minutes 25 seconds West 496.01 feet along said
Westerly right of way line;
THENCE South 2 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds West 1013.59 feet along said
Westerly right of way line;
THENCE South 3 degrees 32 minutes 36 seconds West 292.54 feet along said
Westerly right of way line to the North line of property owned by Flood Control District of
Maricopa County described in Judgment recorded as document number 1989-0074536,
records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
THENCE South 78 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds West 454.10 feet along said North
line;
THENCE North 13 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds West 30.03 feet to the Northeast
corner of property deeded to Flood Control District of Maricopa County in Warranty
Deed recorded as docket 13193, Page 1502, records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
THENCE along the Northerly line of said deeded property the following 6 courses and
distances;
THENCE South 78 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds West 60.00 feet;
THENCE South 11 degrees 49 minutes 50 seconds East 20.00 feet;
THENCE South 78 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds West 260.00 feet;
THENCE South 89 degrees 47 minutes 45 seconds West 101.73 feet;
THENCE North 9 degrees 1 minute 53 seconds West 54.56 feet;
THENCE South 78 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds West 107.62 feet to the centerline
of 29th Avenue as shown on said Plat Map of Dedication;
THENCE North 9 degrees 1 minute 53 seconds West 69. 75 feet along said centerline
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Comprising 128.203 acres more or less, subject to all easements of record.
Page 113
PARCEL NO. 2:
Lot 5, FINAL PLAT OF PREMIER METRO 2011, recorded in Book 1095 of Maps, Page
27, records of Maricopa County, Arizona.
Comprising 0.010 acres more or less, subject to all easements of record.
PARCEL NO. 3 (Dillards):
A parcel of land located in the east half of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 2 East
of Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian described as follows:
COMMENCING for a tie at the North quarter corner of section 26, the North line of the
Northeast quarter which bears North 89 Degrees 58 Minutes 05 Seconds East;
Thence, South 2,216.52 feet; Thence, East 251.13 feet to a point;
Thence, continuing East 1,894.74 feet to the centerline of Metro Parkway East, being a
non-tangent curve, concave to the right, having a radius of 4,665.21 feet, the center of
which bears North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, and the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence, southerly along said centerline and said curve, through a central angle of 03
Degrees 08 Minutes 19 Seconds, and an arc length of 255.55 feet;
Thence, departing said centerline, North 84 Degrees 40 Minutes 49 Seconds West,
640.20 feet;
Thence, South 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 44.15 feet;
Thence, North 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 15.00 feet;
Thence, South 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 20.00 feet;
Thence, North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 46.07 feet;
Thence, North 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 236.82 feet;
Thence, North 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East, 46.07 feet;
Thence, North 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East, 172.00 feet;
Thence, North 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 35.00 feet;
Thence, North 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East, 70.00 feet;
Thence, North 45 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East, 386.00 feet;
Page 114
Thence, North 75 Degrees 47 Minutes 23 Seconds East, 521.33 feet, to the centerline
of Metro Parkway East, being a non-tangent curve, concave to the right, having a radius
of 4,665.21 feet, the center of which bears South 82 Degrees 36 Minutes 39 Seconds
West;
Thence, southerly along said centerline and said curve, through a central angle of 07
Degrees 23 Minutes 21 Seconds, and an arc length of 601.66 feet, to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said portion of land containing 572,870 square feet, or 13.1513 acres, more or less, and
being subject to any easements, restrictions, and/or rights-of-ways of record or
otherwise.
Page 115
Page 116
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 300 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 31st Avenue and
Dynamite Boulevard (Ordinance G-7046)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to allow
single-family residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 5.04 acres
Proposal: Single-family residential
Owner: Randy and Betty Schmille
Applicant and Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo P.A.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 11,
2022, and recommended denial, by a vote of 7-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modification, by a
vote of 8-1.
Location
Approximately 300 feet south of the southwest corner of 31st Avenue and Dynamite
Boulevard
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 28010 and 28020 N. 31st Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 117
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-16-22-1) 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 5.04 acre site located approximately 300 feet
south of the southwest corner of 31st Avenue and Dynamite Boulevard in a portion of
Section 35, Township 5 North, 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 District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 118
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall not exceed 14 lots.
2. The development shall be in general conformance with the conceptual elevations
date stamped March 10, 2022, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. A minimum of 10 lots, which shall include all lots adjacent to 31st Avenue, the lot
at the northwest corner of the site, and all lots adjacent to the south perimeter of
the site, shall be limited to 1 story and 20 feet in height, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The common open space area shall provide a minimum of 2 active recreational
elements, such as, but not limited to, playground sets, ramadas, barbeque area,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The required landscape setback along 31st Avenue shall include minimum 50
percent 2-inch caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper trees planted 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. All sidewalks within the subdivision shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot-
wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
7. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 119
10. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 120
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 121
EXHIBIT A
Parcel 1:
The North half of the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
EXCEPTING the Easterly 25 feet for right of way purposes as found in Ordinance S-
29091; and
EXCEPT all oil, gas and other mineral deposits as reserved to the United States of
America in patent to said land recorded in Docket 3620, page 379.
Parcel 2:
The South half of the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
EXCEPTING the Easterly 25 feet for right of way purposes as found in Ordinance S-
29091; and
EXCEPT all oil, gas and other mineral deposits as reserved to the Unites States of
America in patent to said land recorded in Docket 3620, page 379.
together with all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.
Page 122
Page 123
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Street EV Body Repair Center PUD) - Approximately 320 feet North of the
Northwest Corner of 32nd Street and Union Hills Drive (Ordinance G-7050)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow electric
vehicle body repair and C-2 commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 5.05 acres
Proposed Use: Electric vehicle body repair and C-2 commercial uses
Owner: SCLP 32nd Street, LLC
Applicant and Representative: Carolyn Oberholtzer; Bergin, Frakes, Smalley &
Oberholtzer
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 1,
2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept.
12, 2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 15-
0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 320 feet north of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Union Hills
Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 18808 N. 32nd St.
Page 124
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 125
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-37-22-2) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.05-acre property located approximately
320 feet north of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Union Hills Drive in a portion
of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in
Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “PUD” (Planned
Unit Development).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 126
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the 32nd Street EV Body Repair
Center PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be
submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with
Development Narrative date stamped August 22, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations.
a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”
b. Page 7, Development Standards, revise the last portion of the last
sentence to read: “…..and Section 1307.H. (Walkable Urban Code –
Bicycle Parking).”
c. Page 7 and 14, first foot note, revise the first portion of the sentence to:
“Trash enclosures and…..”.
d. Page 8, Landscape Standards table, Parking Lot Landscaping
standards, add an asterisk next to 10% to indicate that existing parking
areas will adhere to Section 702.A.3 per the footnote below the table.
e. Page 8, Operational Standards, remove extra period from the first
sentence.
f. Page 12, Lighting Standards, revise the last portion of the sentence to
read: “….shall adhere to Section 704 and 507.Tab.A. standards of the
Zoning Ordinance…”.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
4. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 Waiver of Claims forms. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Page 127
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 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 128
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-37-22-2
THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2000-0260599, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PART OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF
AND THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 65 FEET THEREOF;
THENCE NOTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTH 230.33 FEET OF SAID NORTH HALF;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID NORTH HALF WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 55 FEET THEREOF AND
THE TERMINUS OF THE LINE DESCRIBED HEREIN.
Page 129
Page 130
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Northwest Corner of the 5th Street Alignment and Thomas Road (Ordinance G-
7043)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) to WU Code T5:2 MT (Walkable Urban Code,
Transect 5:2, Transit Midtown Character Area) to allow retail, restaurant,and office
uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-5
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:2 MT
Acreage: 0.75 acres
Proposed Use: Retail, restaurant, and office uses
Owner: David Chamberlin, Suncor Partners Thomas Office, LLC
Applicant: David Chamberlin, D.B. Chamberlin & Associates, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 12,
2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Northwest corner of the 5th Street Alignment and Thomas Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 336, 342, and 346 E. Thomas Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 131
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 (Z-46-22-4) FROM R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO WU CODE T5:2 MT (WALKABLE URBAN CODE,
TRANSECT 5:2, TRANSIT MIDTOWN CHARACTER AREA).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.75 acre site located at the northwest
corner of the 5th Street alignment and Thomas Road, in a portion of Section 29,
Township 2 North, and Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is
hereby changed from “R-5” (Multifamily Residence District) to “WU Code T5:2 MT”
(Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:2, Transit Midtown Character Area).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 132
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The developer shall construct a minimum 6-foot-wide sidewalk separated by a
minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area along the north side of Thomas Road
planted with minimum three-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center
or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planned and Development
Department.
2. The developer shall dedicate a sidewalk easement for the north side of
Thomas Road so the total right-of-way and sidewalk easement equals 50 feet,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet in width shall be provided along the
west property line for a linear distance of 80 feet measured from the south
property line, as approved by the planning and development department.
4. A minimum of 14 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall
adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
5. The developer shall dedicate a total of 20 feet along the northern alley, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. The developer shall provide local street paving for the full length of the alley
along the development’s frontage, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
7. The developer shall dedication a 10-foot by 10-foot right-of-way triangle for a
total 25-foot by 25-foot clearance at the northeast corner of the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 133
10. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
11. 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.
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 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
Page 134
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 135
EXHIBIT A
Within a portion of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:
Parcel No. 1
Lot 2 and the East 12.50 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, MAYFAIR, according to Book 19, page
SO of Maps, records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
EXCEPT that portion of said Lot 2 conveyed to the City of Phoenix by Deed recorded in
Docket 15158, page 1119;
EXCEPT any portion of above Parcels 1, 2 and 3 which were conveyed to the City of
Phoenix by document in Recording Nos. 90-452641 and 2002-0706901.
Assessor's Parcel Number: 118-21-067B
Commonly Known as: 346 East Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85012
Parcel No. 2
The West 37.50 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, and the East 26.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 2,
MAYFAIR, according to Book 19 of Maps, page SO, records of Maricopa County,
Arizona;
EXCEPT that portion, if any, lying within the East 12.50 feet of Lot 4 and the West half
of Lot 6.
Assessor's Parcel Number: 118-21-069
Commonly Known as: 342 East Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85012
Parcel No. 3
Lot 8 and the West half of Lot 6, Block 2, MAYFAIR, according to Book 19 of Maps,
page SO, records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
EXCEPT the West 12.50 feet of Lot 8.
Assessor's Parcel Number: 118-21-072
Commonly Known as: 336 East Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 136
Page 137
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Northwest Corner of 6th Avenue and Van Buren Street (Ordinance G-7045)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
DTC-Van Buren (Downtown Code, Van Buren Character Area) to DTC-Van Buren HP
(Downtown Code, Van Buren Character Area, Historic Preservation Overlay) to allow a
Historic Preservation Overlay for the City Center Motel.
Summary
Current Zoning: DTC-Van Buren
Proposed Zoning: DTC-Van Buren HP
Acreage: 0.61 acres
Proposal: Historic Preservation Overlay for the City Center Motel
Owner: Fabius Enterprise, LLC
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Historic Preservation Commission
Representative: Kevin Weight, City of Phoenix, Planning and Development
Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 12,
2022, and recommended approval, by a vote of 15-0.
HPC Action: The Historic Preservation Commission heard this case on Sept. 19, 2022,
and recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Central City Village Planning Committee and the
Historic Preservation Commission recommendations, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Northwest corner of 6th Avenue and Van Buren Street
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 312, 316 and 318 N. 6th Ave.; and 600 and 612 W. Van Buren St.
Responsible Department
Page 138
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 139
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-51-22-7) FROM DTC-VAN BUREN
(DOWNTOWN CODE, VAN BUREN CHARACTER AREA) TO
DTC-VAN BUREN HP (DOWNTOWN CODE, VAN BUREN
CHARACTER AREA, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.61 acre site located at the northwest
corner of 6th Avenue and Van Buren Street in a portion of Section 5, Township 1 North,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from
“DTC-Van Buren” (Downtown Code, Van Buren Character Area), to “DTC-Van Buren
HP” (Downtown Code, Van Buren Character Area, Historic Preservation Overlay).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 140
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 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 141
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-51-22-7
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF THE LOTS AND TRACTS SHOWN ON
WILLIAMS SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN BOOK 7, PAGE 24, MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS (MCR) BEING THOSE TRACTS AS CONVEYED TO FABIUS
ENTERPRISE, LLC BY DEED OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2020-
0550928, MCR AND INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2021-1167191, MCR AND LYING IN
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3
EAST OF THE GILA & SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, CITY OF PHOENIX, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BOUNDED AND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENT LINE OF SIXTH
AVENUE WITH THE LOCALLY ACCEPTED AND PERPETUATED MONUMENT LINE
OF VAN BUREN STREET (STONE IN HAND HOLE) FROM WHICH POINT THE
MONUMENT LINE INTERSECTION OF SAID SIXTH AVENUE WITH FILLMORE
STREET (PK NAIL WITH TAG RPA RLS 33868) BEARS N0°06'09"E A DISTANCE OF
1213.92 FEET;
THENCE N0°06'09"E, ALONG SAID MONUMENT LINE OF SIXTH AVENUE, A
DISTANCE OF 31.41 FEET;
THENCE N89°53'51"W, ACROSS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID SIXTH AVENUE, A
DISTANCE OF 32.82 FEET TO A POINT BEING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SIXTH AVENUE WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF VAN BUREN STREET AND BEING POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3)
COURSES AND DISTANCES:
1) N89°40'24"W A DISTANCE OF 102.23 FEET;
2) N0°00'45"E A DISTANCE OF 2.47 FEET;
3) N89°52'39"W A DISTANCE OF 0.31 FEET;
THENCE ACROSS SAID FABIUS ENTERPRISE TRACTS THE FOLLOWING EIGHT
(8) COURSES AND DISTANCES:
1) N0°08'37"E A DISTANCE OF 15.52 FEET;
2) N90°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 19.90 FEET;
3) N0°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 11.74 FEET;
4) N90°00'00'E A DISTANCE OF 3.87 FEET;
5) N0°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 70.87 FEET;
Page 142
6) N90°00'00"W A DISTANCE OF 4.06 FEET;
7) N0°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 91.83 FEET;
8) N90°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 83.13 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF SIXTH AVENUE;
THENCE S0°06'09"W, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF
193.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 16,057.49 S.F. (0.3686 ACRE) OF
LAND, MORE OR LESS, INCLUDING ANY EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS N0°06'09"E FOR THE
N0°06'09"E FOR THE FOR THE MONUMENT LINE OF SIXTH AVENUE BETWEEN
FILLMORE STREET AND VAN BUREN STREET CALCULATED USING THE
RESULTS OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 880, PAGE 42, MCR AND THE
RECORD OF SURVEY PLSS SUBDIVISION - MARICOPA COUNTY GEODETIC
DENSIFICATION AND CADASTRAL SURVEY (GDACS) FOR TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,
RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA & SALT RIVER MERIDIAN RECORDED IN BOOK 800,
PAGE 21, MCR
Page 143
Page 144
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 650 Feet East of the Southeast Corner of 107th Avenue and
Lower Buckeye Road (Ordinance G-7047)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of
the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-SP-6-22-7 and rezone the
site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial,
Special Permit) to allow a self-service storage warehouse and all underlying C-2
uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 4.75
Proposed Use: Self-service storage warehouse and all underlying C-2 uses
Owner: Devan Wastchak, Quick Trip Co.
Applicant and Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 20,
2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 7-5-
1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Estella Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
Location
Approximately 650 feet east of the southeast corner of 107th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 2801 and 2825 S. 107th Ave.; and 10587, 10639, and 10675 W.
Lower Buckeye Road.
Page 145
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 146
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-SP-6-22-7) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
SPECIAL PERMIT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.75-acre site located approximately 650 feet
east of the southeast corner of 107th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road in a portion of
Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial), to “C-2 SP” (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit) to allow self-service storage warehouse and all underlying
C-2 uses.
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 147
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped August 15, 2022 as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. The site shall be developed with a similar architectural theme as the
commercial development directly to the west. The theme shall assure that the
building and canopy colors, elevations, exterior materials, landscaping, lighting,
and signage convey a sense of continuity throughout the development.
3. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Lower Buckeye Road and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail
(MUT) shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where conflicts or restrictions exist, the developer shall work with
the Site Planning section on an alternate design through the technical appeal
process.
4. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and
minimum 11-foot-wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back
of curb, along the south side of Lower Buckeye Road, landscape as follows, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant single trunk shade trees planted
to provide a minimum of 75 percent shade at maturity.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage at
maturity
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas for employees and customers shall be
landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant
shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and
achieve minimum 25% shade at maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 148
6. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Landscaping along Lower Buckeye Road shall conform with the Estrella Village
Arterial Street Landscape Program landscape palette and landscaping
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the building entrances or in a secure location
inside the building and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred
Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
9. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way for the south side
of Lower Buckeye Road, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. The developer shall construct and landscape a minimum 14-foot-wide median
island in Lower Buckeye Road from 107th Avenue connecting to the existing
median, east of the development site, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
11. All access control to 107th Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by
Maricopa County, with documentation of approval to be provided to the City
prior to preliminary site plan approval.
12. Existing irrigation facilities along Lower Buckeye Road are to be
undergrounded and relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to
identify existing land rights and establish the appropriate process to relocate
the facility. Relocations that require additional dedications and or land transfers
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
13. The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
Form for the MAG Transportation Improvements Program to the Street
Transportation Department. This form is a requirement of the EPA to meet
clean air quality requirements.
14. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
Page 149
15. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Goodyear Airport (GYR) 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.
16. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
17. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
Page 150
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 151
EXHIBIT A
PAD 4 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF FARM UNIT "N", ACCORDING TO THE FARM UNIT
PLAT, OR THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND
SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20
FROM WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER BEARS S 00°39'22" E
(BASIS OF BEARING), A DISTANCE OF 2657.53 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST, ON
THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF
659.03 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE EASEMENT
HEREIN DESCRIBED.
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 89
DEGREES 49 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
226.27 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 590.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES
14 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 536.28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 39 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 237.16
FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 310.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 352.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 207,013 SQUARE FEET OR 4.752 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
Page 152
Page 153
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 460 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 83rd Avenue and
Buckeye Road (Ordinance G-7048)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of
the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-32-22-7 and rezone the
site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 HGT/WVR (Intermediate
Commercial, Height Waiver) to allow commercial use with a height waiver. This is a
companion case to Z-SP-4-22-7 and must be heard first, followed by Z-SP-4-22-7.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 HGT/WVR
Acreage: 2.55
Proposed Use: Commercial use with a height waiver
Owner: Dolce Vita Development, LLC
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 16,
2022, and continued the case, by a vote of 5-2. The Estrella Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Sept. 20, 2022 and recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation with a modification and additional stipulations, by a vote of 8-
4-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Sept. 1, 2022, and
continued the case, by a vote of 7-0. The Planning Commission heard this case on
Oct. 6, 2022, and recommended approval, per the Estrella Village Planning
Committee recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
Location
Approximately 460 feet south of the southwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Buckeye
Road
Page 154
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 1300 and 1400 S. 83rd Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 155
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-32-22-7) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 HGT/WVR (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, HEIGHT WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.55-acre site located approximately 460 feet
south of the southwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Buckeye Road in a portion of Section
15, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial), to “C-2 HGT/WVR”
(Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 156
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped April 18, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations and approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be required along the south
property line.
3. The maximum building height shall be 36 feet for a self-service storage
warehouse facility. All other uses shall be limited to a maximum building height
of 2 stories not to exceed 30 feet.
4. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape pallet and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as otherwise noted herein, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50% 2-inch caliper
and minimum 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant trees, planted
20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. Evergreen trees shall be planted within the landscape setback along the south
perimeter of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Where pedestrian pathways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts with parking and drive aisle
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. All uncovered surface parking lot area shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall
be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade at maturity,
as approved by Planning and Development Department.
9. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, or in a
secure room, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All sidewalks along 83rd Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards,
as approved and/or modified by the Planning and Development department.
Page 157
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained no higher than 24 inches to
provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
11. The developer shall reserve four storage units (minimum size 10 feet by 10
feet) for use by community organizations and/or persons in need free of
charge. Of these storage units, one storage units may be reserved for a
community organization for use as a meeting room; and three storage units (or
four if the other unit is not being uses as a meeting space) shall be reserved for
storage purposes for persons in need as individuals by the community
organization or developer (such as victims of domestic violence or persons
evicted from their home).
12. Any future planning hearing officer action to modify these stipulations shall
require the following:
a. Enhanced public notification to include notice of the application to all
property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site and city registered
neighborhood organizations within one mile of the subject site.
b. Recommendation from the Estrella Village Planning Committee.
13. The developer shall construct a restricted right-in/right-out driveway along 83rd
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. The
developer shall complete the application and dedicate and construct all
necessary improvements within the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvements and Power District designated lands or as modified by the Street
Transportation Department.
14. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Page 158
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 159
EXHIBIT A
LOT 4 AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BUCKEYE FULFILLMENT CENTER,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 1199 OF
MAPS, PAGE 39, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 292.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE NORTH 05 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 254.16 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE, NORTH 05 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 02
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 57.13 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
323.77 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREE 05 MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
13.63 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 01 DEGREE 05 MINUTES 37
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 240.17 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
16.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 89,145 SQUARE FEET OR 2.046 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.
Page 160
Page 161
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 460 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 83rd Avenue and
Buckeye Road (Ordinance G-7049)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of
the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-SP-4-22-7 and rezone the
site from C-2 (Pending C-2 HGT/WVR) (Intermediate Commercial, Pending
Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver) to C-2 SP HGT/WVR (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit, Height Waiver) to allow a self-service storage facility
and all underlying C-2 uses with a height waiver. This is a companion case to Z-32-
22-7, and must be heard immediately following.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 (Pending C-2 HGT/WVR)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP HGT/WVR
Acreage: 2.55
Proposed Use: Self-service storage facility and all underlying C-2 uses with a height
waiver
Owner: Dolce Vita Development, LLC
Applicant: SAFStor Real Estate Co, LLC
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 16,
2022, and continued the case, by a vote of 5-2. The Estrella Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Sept. 20, 2022 and recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation with a modification and additional stipulations, by a vote of 9-
2-2.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Sept. 1, 2022, and
continued the case, by a vote of 7-0. The Planning Commission heard this case on
Oct. 6, 2022, and recommended approval, per the Estrella Village Planning
Committee recommendation with a deleted stipulation, by a vote of 8-1.
Page 162
Location
Approximately 460 feet south of the southwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Buckeye
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 1300 and 1400 S. 83rd Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 163
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-SP-4-22-7) FROM C-2 (PENDING C-2
HGT/WVR) (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, PENDING
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HEIGHT WAIVER) TO C-2 SP
HGT/WVR (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT,
HEIGHT WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.55-acre site located approximately 460 feet
south of the southwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Buckeye Road in a portion of Section
15, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from “C-2 (Pending C-2 HGT/WVR)” (Intermediate Commercial,
Pending Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver), to “C-2 SP HGT/WVR”
(Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit, Height Waiver) to allow self-service storage
facility and all underlying C-2 uses with a height waiver.
Page 164
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped April 18, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations and approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
2. A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be required along the south
property line.
3. The maximum building height shall be 36 feet for a self-service storage
warehouse facility. All other uses shall be limited to a maximum building height
of 2 stories not to exceed 30 feet.
4. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape pallet and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as otherwise noted herein, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50% 2-inch caliper
and minimum 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant trees, planted
20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. Evergreen trees shall be planted within the landscape setback along the south
perimeter of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Where pedestrian pathways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts with parking and drive aisle
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. All uncovered surface parking lot area shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall
be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade at maturity,
Page 165
as approved by Planning and Development Department.
9. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, or in a
secure room, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All sidewalks along 83rd Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards,
as approved and/or modified by the Planning and Development department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained no higher than 24 inches to
provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
11. Any future planning hearing officer action to modify these stipulations shall
require the following:
a. Enhanced public notification to include notice of the application to all
property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site and city registered
neighborhood organizations within one mile of the subject site.
b. Recommendation from the Estrella Village Planning Committee.
12. The developer shall construct a restricted right-in/right-out driveway along 83rd
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. The
developer shall complete the application and dedicate and construct all
necessary improvements within the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvements and Power District designated lands or as modified by the Street
Transportation Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
14. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Page 166
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 167
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 168
EXHIBIT A
LOT 4 AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BUCKEYE FULFILLMENT CENTER,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 1199 OF
MAPS, PAGE 39, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 292.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE NORTH 05 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 254.16 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE, NORTH 05 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 02
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 57.13 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
323.77 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREE 05 MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
13.63 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 01 DEGREE 05 MINUTES 37
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 240.17 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
16.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 89,145 SQUARE FEET OR 2.046 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.
Page 169
Page 170
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Planning Hearing Officer Application PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 -
Northwest Corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street (Ordinance G-7053)
Request to hold a public hearing and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to
consider the Planning Commission recommendation by the City Council on matters
heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Aug. 17, 2022, and the Planning Commission
on Oct. 6, 2022.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4
Existing Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.95
Owner: Kim Sperry, Omninet Central, LP
Applicant and Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval upon development
commencing within seven years.
2. Technical correction for Stipulation 2.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this
request on July 26, 2022, but did not have a quorum.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Aug. 17, 2022, and
recommended approval with additional stipulations.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with an
additional stipulation. See Attachment C (PC Summary) for the list of Planning
Commission recommended stipulations.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
on Oct. 11, 2022.
Page 171
Location
Northwest Corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 4800, 4806, and 4820 N. Central Ave.; 11, 15, 21, and 25 W. Mariposa
St.; and 6, 8, and 10 W. Pierson St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 172
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 26, 2022
Deputy City Manager
Planning and Development Director
From: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Assistant Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 52 ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2022, PUBLIC HEARING/
FORMAL AGENDA- PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 (G-7053)- NORTHWEST
CORNER OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND PIERSON STREET
52 is a Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption of a request to modify stipulations from
Item_,
an approved 2015 rezoning case. Modification of Stipulation case PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 is a
request to modify stipulations for a 2.95-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of
Central Avenue and Pierson Street for a proposed mixed-use development.
This request is to continue the item to December 7, 2022 due to a sign posting error.
Staff recommends continuing this item to the December 7, 2022 City Council Formal
meeting.
Approved:
��
Alan Stephen�
Deputy City Manager/Planning and Development Director
Page 173
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-26-15-4 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6089.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately at
the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street in a portion of Section 20,
Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”, are
hereby modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Omninet - West PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped October 14, 2015.
2. The property owner shall provide a deposit in the amount of $50,000 into a
Street Transportation Department escrow account at the City of Phoenix to be
utilized for traffic calming measures in the Pierson Place Historic District.
These funds may be contributed toward the purchase and installation of such
devices as roundabouts, speed humps/cushions, or raised crosswalks (speed
tables), limited turning, traffic diverters, gates or other such traffic calming or
management tools for the area bounded by Central Avenue, Camelback Road,
Page 174
7th Avenue, and the Grand Canal. Distribution of funds shall be at the mutual
agreement of the five member neighborhood traffic team, the residents on
affected streets, and the City of Phoenix Streets TRANSPORTATION
Department Safety and Neighborhood Traffic section. Owner may apply for
reimbursement of escrow funds from the Street Transportation Department if
no special petition has been submitted within 5 years from the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
3. Developer shall install a monument proximate to the northwest corner of the
site identifying the Pierson Place Historic District and facing toward the Light
Rail station, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. The
monument shall be similar to the existing Pierson Place Historic District
Monument located proximate to the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue and
Camelback Road, or as otherwise agreed upon by the developer and the
Board of Directors of the Pierson Place Historic District.
4. The developer shall construct a directional retail driveway to direct retail traffic
away from the neighborhood as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY
OFFICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING
AND SUBMIT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE
SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.
6. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF
THE RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT
PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.
7. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY
CEASE ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33- FOOT
RADIUS OF THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND
ALLOW TIME FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS
THE MATERIALS.
8. The approval shall be conditioned upon development commencing within
5. EIGHT (8) seven (7) years of the City Council approval of this change of
zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
(For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the
issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site).
Page 175
9. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE A QUALIFIED
ENGINEER’S REPORT CERTIFYING THE AVERAGE ANNUAL INTERIOR
NOISE EXPOSURE FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR ENCLOSED PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY AREA WILL NOT EXCEED 45 DECIBELS.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6089 this portion of the rezoning is now subject
to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6089 and as modified in Section 1
of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until all the
stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 176
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (2 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 177
EXHIBIT A
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 46 TROUGH 56, STANLEY PLACE, RECORDED AS
BOOK 18 OF MAPS, PAGE 21 LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST
OF THE GILA RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, SAID
POINT BEING MARKED BY A STONE IN A HANDHOLE LYING SOUTH 89 42'53"
EAST A DISTANCE OF 2664.89 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 20, SAID POINT BEING MARKED BY A BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE;
THENCE SOUTH 00 00'00" EAST (BASIS OF BEARINGS) A DISTANCE OF 659.91
FEET TO THE CENTER POINT IN THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND
WEST PIERSON STREET, SAID POINT BEING MARKED BY 2 BRASS CAP
REFERENCE MONUMENTS LYING NORTH 53 31'35"WEST A DISTANCE OF 59.09
FEET, AND SOUTH 55 54'14" WEST A DISTANCE OF 57.79 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 43'49" WEST 50.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 00'00" EAST PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET WEST OF THE
NORTH- SOUTH MIDSECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, 30.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 53, BEING MARKED BY A FOUND "X" IN
CONCRETE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89 43'49" WEST PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET NORTH OF
THE CENTERLINE OF WEST PIERSON STREET, 379.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 56, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH
CAP L#l34711;
THENCE NORTH 00 00'00" EAST 135.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 56, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH CAP L#41076;
THENCE NORTH 89 43'26" WEST 73.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 46, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH CAP L#41076;
THENCE NORTH 00 00'00" EAST 135.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 46, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH CAP LS#41076;
THENCE SOOTH 89 43'03" EAST 245.02 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#38175;
THENCE SOUTH 62 41'29" EAST 79.57 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#38175;
THENCE SOUTH 62 43'59" EAST 78.54 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#39131;
THENCE SOUTH 60 22'32" EAST 25.98 FEET BEING MARKED BY A PK NAIL WITH
TAG LS#38175;
Page 178
THENCE SOUTH 57 07'28" EAST 26.07 FEET BEING MARKED A 1/2" REBAR WITH
CAP LS#38168;
THENCE NORTH 89 59'52" EAST 7.65 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#38175;
THENCE SOUTH 00 15'26" EAST 29.09 FEET BEING MARKED BY A WITNESS
CORNER LYING 1.80 FEET EAST, SAID POINT BEING A "X" IN CONCRETE;
THENCE NORTH 89 59'51" EAST 14.22 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF CENTRAL AVENUE, BEING MARKED BY A "X" IN
CONCRETE; THENCE SOUTH 00 00'00" EAST PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET
WEST OF THE NORTH- SOUTH MIDSECTION LINE, 142.42 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
NET AREA OF PARCEL IS 100,792 S.F. OR 2.3139 ACRES MORE OR LESS
Page 179
Page 180
Attachment B
Staff Report: PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4
APPLICATION #: PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
EXISTING ZONING: PUD
ACREAGE: 2.95
REQUEST: 1) Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval
upon development commencing within seven years.
2) Technical correction for Stipulation 2.
APPLICANT: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
OWNER: Kim Sperry, Omninet Central, LP
REPRESENTATIVE: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval with additional stipulations, as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard the request on August 17, 2022 and recommended
approval with additional stipulations.
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Alhambra Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this request on July
26, 2022 but did not have a quorum.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site consists of 2.95 gross acres located at the northwest corner of Central
Avenue and Pierson Street and is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the
Omninet - West PUD. The applicant requested a modification of Stipulation 5 regarding
conditional approval upon development commencing within seven years. The
Page 181
Staff Report – PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
modification would allow an extension of one additional year to commence development.
The applicant’s narrative (Exhibit B) notes that the development has received preliminary
site plan approval however delays regarding utility relocation and other necessary
approvals will likely prevent the development from occurring within the stipulated
timeframe.
The appellant argues in their appeal document (Exhibit A) that the proposed development
has been significantly modified since the original approval of the Omninet-West PUD.
They argue that these modifications no longer reflect the transit-oriented, walkable
character of the original PUD. The appellant argues that the time extension should not be
granted due to these modifications.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On December 16, 2015, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-26-15-
4, a request to rezone approximately 3.53 gross acres located at the northwest corner of
Central Avenue and Pierson Street from R-3 TOD-1 (Multifamily Residence District,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), R-5 TOD-1 (Multifamily Residence
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate
Commercial, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), and P-1 TOD-1
(Parking District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development), subject to stipulations (Exhibit E). This approval established the
Omninet – West PUD.
The Omninet – West PUD, was intended to enable the redevelopment of the site with a
mixed-use development consisting of multifamily residential and commercial uses.
Maximum building setbacks for the site are 12 feet from Central Avenue, 30 feet from the
Light Rail frontage, 10 feet from Mariposa and Pierson Streets. The minimum building
setbacks for the western property line are five (5) feet for the south portion and 15 feet for
the north portion. The maximum number of dwelling units is 286. The maximum building
height is 56 feet. Design guidelines include requirements for pedestrian connectivity to
the Camelback Road/ Central Avenue Light Rail Station, Pierson Street, and retail shops.
Mixed use buildings are required to provide a community pool and other gathering areas
on the second level. Building accents, materials, and details are required to be consistent
with elements of the Walkable Urban Code and compatible with the adjacent Pierson
Place Historic Neighborhood. Streetscape landscaping is required to conform with
existing plans and guidelines for Central Avenue including the Central Avenue
Beautification Plan and the Central Avenue Development Standards. The complete PUD
Development Narrative is available online at https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-
zoning/pzservices/pud-cases.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
One letter of opposition was received regarding this request. Concerns expressed in the
correspondence include the following:
Page 182
Staff Report – PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
• Modifications to proposed plans originally presented to the public during the
hearing process for the original rezoning case.
• The permitted building height was contingent on features that have been modified
or removed since the original approval.
• Changes to the development team associated with the project.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Commercial and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site: PUD Vacant
North: R-3, C-2 (App. C-2 HR) Vacant
Light Rail Station
South: R-5 HR, C-2 HR Multifamily Residential
Commercial
East: PUD Mixed-Use Development
(Across Central Avenue)
West: R-3 HP, R-5 Single-Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:
1) The request to modify Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval of development is
recommended to be approved. The request will allow an additional year (an increase
from 7 to 8 years total) to commence development. The applicant noted unexpected
delays related to the ongoing pandemic and infrastructure issues.
2) The site is identified as archaeologically sensitive and three additional stipulations are
recommended to be included to address requirements for archaeological survey and
testing.
Page 183
Staff Report – PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Omninet - West PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted
to the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City
Council approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative
shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
October 14, 2015.
2. The property owner shall provide a deposit in the amount of $50,000 into
a Street Transportation Department escrow account at the City of
Phoenix to be utilized for traffic calming measures in the Pierson Place
Historic District. These funds may be contributed toward the purchase
and installation of such devices as roundabouts, speed humps/cushions,
or raised crosswalks (speed tables), limited turning, traffic diverters,
gates or other such traffic calming or management tools for the area
bounded by Central Avenue, Camelback Road, 7th Avenue, and the
Grand Canal. Distribution of funds shall be at the mutual agreement of
the five member neighborhood traffic team, the residents on affected
streets, and the City of Phoenix Streets TRANSPORTATION Department
Safety and Neighborhood Traffic section. Owner may apply for
reimbursement of escrow funds from the Street Transportation
Department if no special petition has been submitted within 5 years from
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3. Developer shall install a monument proximate to the northwest corner of
the site identifying the Pierson Place Historic District and facing toward
the Light Rail station, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The monument shall be similar to the existing Pierson Place
Historic District Monument located proximate to the southwest corner of
3rd Avenue and Camelback Road, or as otherwise agreed upon by the
developer and the Board of Directors of the Pierson Place Historic
District.
4. The developer shall construct a directional retail driveway to direct retail
traffic away from the neighborhood as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY
OFFICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA
TESTING AND SUBMIT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY
THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING,
LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.
Page 184
Staff Report – PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
6. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW
OF THE RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL
CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS.
7. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE
ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER
SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE ALL GROUND-DISTURBING
ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33- FOOT RADIUS OF THE DISCOVERY,
NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME FOR THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE MATERIALS.
8. The approval shall be conditioned upon development commencing within
5. EIGHT (8) seven (7) years of the City Council approval of this change of
zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. (For purposes of this stipulation, development shall
commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building
walls on site).
Exhibits
A – Appeal Document (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (25 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Recorded Ordinance from Rezoning Case No. Z-26-15 (6 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-26-15 (1 page)
G – PHO Summary for PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 from August 17, 2022 (5 pages)
Page 185
EXHIBIT A
Page 186
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
PHO HEARING DATE: August 17, 2022 RECEIVED: August 24, 2022
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: October 6, 2022
PLANNING
COMMISSION
TENTATIVE DATE
November 2, 2022
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL: PHONE:
Ken Waters
126 West Pierson Street
602-373-1902
Phoenix, AZ 85013
kennywaters602@gmail.com
RECEIPT NUMBER: N/A
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The applicant is asking for an extension of zoning. That was granted by the Village,
PC and Council; but they have significantly modified the TOD/WU centric plan,
specifically the commercial/walkable urban “mix-use” portion . They presented to
AVPC, PC, neighbors, and Council, making it undeserving of an extension.
TAKEN BY: Greg Harmon
c: Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Adam Stranieri
Greg Harmon
Brad Wylam
Victoria Cipolla-Murillo
Julie Garcia
Ben Ernyei - Posting
GIS Team
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2022\PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 - Cover.doc
updated 7/27/2022 vcm
Page 187
Page 188
(;+,%,7%
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Exhibit 1
Page 194
Page 195
Exhibit 2
Page 196
Page 197
Exhibit 3
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Exhibit 4
Page 205
6,7('$7$
$66(6625 63$5&(/12 $%$%$ 6,7($5($
%%&$%% *52666,7($5($ $& 6)
&'()$% 1(76,7($5($ $& 6)
$$
& =21,1*
&200(5&,$/ 352-(&7$''5(66 (;,67,1*=21,1* &$6(= 38'
1&(175$/$9( 1:&&(175$/$9( 3,(562167 352326('=21,1* 38'
67(3%$&. 0$;+(,*+7 3+2(1,;$5,=21$
'(16,7<
6,*1$/ 2:1(5 '(6,*1352)(66,21$/ 0$;,080':(//,1*81,76$//2:(' '8
+286( 5$1*(:$7(55($/(67$7( 72'' $662&,$7(6,1& $//2:(' '8 '8$&
67(3%$&. 0$;+(,*+7
163((5%/9' 1257+WK675((7 352326(' '8 '8$&
'(19(5&2 3+2(1,;$=
&217$&7.,0%(5/<63(55< &217$&7'(1,6($1'5($6 /27&29(5$*(
$//2:('
352326('
3$5.,1*67$1'$5'6 %8,/',1*)22735,176)
$&&(66,%/(3('(675,$1 0$; $&&(6672 3$5.,1*67$//7<3 5(7$,/ [ 1(7$5($6)
0$5,326$675((7 5287(72/,*+75$,/ 3('(675,$1 /,*+75$,/ 3$5.,1*67$//7<3 5(6,'(17,$/ [ 6)6)
3/$=$ 6(7%$&. $&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*67$// [
0 $&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*5$7,2 [ 36 %8,/',1*+(,*+7
6(7 $;
%$ 3$5.,1*'5,9($,6/(:,'7+ 0,1 $//2:(' 0$;,080%8,/',1*+(,*+7
&.
,1 287
),5(7851,1*5$',, 352326(' 6725,(6$%29(*5$'( 0$;
/2$',1*$5($6 3529,'(' [ 0,1
6,'(:$/. %8,/',1*7<3(
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,&,1,7<0$3 32',80 7<3(,
&08 /,* 38' 1'727+)/225 7<3(9$
:$// +7
&$0(/%$&.5' %8,/',1*6(7%$&.6
5$
6(&85,7< 35,0$5<)5217$*(
(43750 ,/ 5$
/,*+7,1* 3(
'( ,/ 6,7( &(175$/$9( 0$;,080
3/$675,$ 0$5,326$67 /,*+75$,/ 0$;,080
=$ 1 0$5,326$67 0$5,326$ 3,(5621675((76 0$;,080
5 5(029$%/( :(673523(57</,1(
(;,67,1* 1257+3257,212)7+(6,7( 0,1,080
&$123,(6 3,(562167 VW67
5(6,'(17,$/ 6287+3257,212)7+(6,7( 0,1,080
5'$9(
(/067 81,7$5($6
&(175$/$9(
VW$9(
$3$570(1761(781,7$5($6
3('(675,$1
&2:25. 1(75(17$%/( 1(7
3$6(2 VI $668037,216 81,77<3( $5($81,7 '8 5$7,2 5(17$%/(
/$1'6&$3( (175< 6 678',2 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
6,'(:$/.21/< ,7,67+(,17(17,212)7+($33/,&$1772$&&2002'$7( 6 678',2 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
(/(0(1762)7+(:$/.$%/(85%$1&2'( :8&2'( ,17+( 6 678',2 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
0$; %5 '(9(/230(172)7+,6352-(&7 6 678',2 12%$/&21< 6) 6)
(
6(7%$&. (=(: 6 678',2 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
$< 38%/,&%,.( $6680(67+$7),5('(3$570(17:,//$33529(+26(38// 6 678',2 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
6
) 3$5.,1* /(1*7+2)8372)((7)5207+(),5($&&(66'5,9( 727$/678',26 6)
352326(' $ %(' ,16,'(&251(5 6) 6)
$6680(67+$767250:$7(5:,//%(6725(',181'(5*5281' $ %('/,9(:25. 6) 6)
),5(+<'5$17
)$&,/,7,(6 $ %(' 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
$ %('5220 6722381,7 6) 6)
$&&(66,%/(3('(675,$1 $6680(67+$7$//(;,67,1*($6(0(176&$1%(02',),('25 $ %('5220 (1'81,7 6) 6)
5$03 322/ 5(029$%/(
5287(72/,*+75$,/ $%$1'21(' $ %('5220 (1'81,7 6) 6)
6,'(:$/. 5(7$,/ &$123,(6
'2:1 (437 727$/%('5220 6)
6) 6)
6(&85,7< *(1(5$/127(6 % %(' ,16,'(&251(5 6)
9(57
/,*+7,1* % %(' 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
0$; &85%7<3 /,*+7,1*3(5&(175$/$9(18(%($87,),&$7,213/$13 % %(' 12%$/&21<-8/,(7 6) 6)
5 6,'(:$/.63(5&(175$/$9(18('(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6$6 % %(' (1'81,7 6) 6)
(;,67,1* 6(7%$&. 3('(675,$1 6(&85,7< 02',),('%<5(,19(173+;8372:172'32/,&<$1':8&2'( % %(' /,9(:25. 6) 6)
5(6,'(17,$/ 3$6(2 )(1&(
727$/%('5220 6)
/$1'6&$3( ),71(66 3/$17(5
$/7(51$7,9(3$9,1*3529,'('216,7(725('8&(+($7,6/$1' 68%727$/ 81,7 6)
6,'(:$/.21/< 6) 6,'(:$/. 5(7$,/ 21&(175$/$9( 6)
0$; 6(((;7(5,25(/(9$7,216)25%8,/',1*+(,*+76$1'67(3%$&.6 $0(1,7,(6 ),71(66/($6,1*&2:25. 6)
6(7%$&. 6725()52173$7,2$5&$'((7& 727$/ 81,75(7$,/$0(1,7,(6 6)
%,.( &200(5&,$/ 0$;
5(48,5('3$5.,1*
5 3$5.,1* 5(7$,/3$5.,1* 6(7%$&. 5()(572(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216)25*/$=,1*3(5&(17$*(62)
&$3$&,725 5(7$,/ 6)6)36 36
(;,67,1* 63$&(6$7 [ 0,1$75(7$,/6725()5217$1'0,15(6,'(17,$/81,76 678',2 [36'8 36
5(6,'(17,$/ &08 %('5220 [36'8 36
:$// 3,(5621675((73('(675,$13$6(2&211(&7,2172/,*+75$,/ %('5220 [36'8 36
727$/ '8 36
75$16)250(5 6(&85,7< 3529,'(/,*+75$,/$1'3$7+:$<5(/$7('6,*1$*($73$6(2 5('8&7,21727$/5(6,'(17,$/ 5(48,5(' 36 36'8
75$6+ )(1&(
/2%%<
5(6,'(17 [ (175$1&(6 5(7$,/ 6)6)36 36
5()86( /($6,1* 5('8&7,21727$/5(7$,/ 5(48,5(' 36
9,6,%,/,7<
&203$&725 6) 1)3$635,1./(56<67(05(48,5(' 727$/ 5(48,5(' 36
*$7( 75,$1*/(
38%/,& 3529,'('3$5.,1*
$&&(66,%/(3('(675,$1 ),5()/2:7(675(48,5(0(176$33/<727+,6352-(&77+,6 *5281'/(9(/*$5$*( 36
5287(72/,*+75$,/ *$7( (/(9 [ 352-(&7:,//&203/<:,7+7+(3)&6(&7,21 %$6(0(17/(9(/ 36
Page 206
(/(9
52: +<'5$8/,&&$/&8/$7,216 5(48,5(':$7(56833/<)25 727$/3529,'('3$5.,1* 36 36'8
/2$',1* /2$',1*
6:,7&+&$%,1(7 75,$1*/( ),5(3527(&7,21 $1'$33(1',;% 3529,'('3$5.,1*)255(7$,/ 36
3529,'('3$5.,1*)255(6,'(17,$/ 36
12&21752//('$&&(666(&85,7<%$55,(56$5(3/$&(' 5(48,5('$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*
[ [ $&5266$1<),5($33$5$786$&&(6652$'$77+,6352-(&7 5(48,5(' '8[ 36
&(175$/$9(18(
9,6,%,/,7< 9,6,%,/,7< 5(7$,/ 36
'2256&5((1 3/$17(5 9(57 (175<67223 0$; 7+(3)&6(&7,210$5.,1*&2'($33/,(6727+,6 727$/ 36
75,$1*/( 75,$1*/(
$7/2$',1* 6,'(:$/. &85%7<3 352-(&77+,66(&7,215()(5672),5(&2'(2)),&,$/$33529(' 3529,'('$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*
3(5&23 3(5&23 9(57
6(7%$&. 6,*1$*($1'0$5.,1*6$67+(<5(/$7(72),5($33$5$786 727$/ 36 9$1
(175<67223 &85%7<3 $&&(6652$'6 5(48,5('%,.(3$5.,1*
3,(5621675((7 5(7$,/ %,.(369(+,&/(360$; 36
5(6,'(17,$/81,76 %,.(36'80$; 36
727$/%,.(36 36
3529,'('%,.(3$5.,1*
5(7$,/ 36
5(6,'(17,$/81,76 36
727$/ 36
67$9( (;,67,1*
5 5(6,'(17,$/ %8,/',1*$5($6 *5266
5(6,'(17,$/81,76 6)
5(7$,/ 21&(175$/ 6)
$0(1,7,(6 ),71(66/($6,1*&2:25. 6)
*$5$*( 6)
727$/%8,/',1* 6)
6,7(3/$1127(6
'HYHORSPHQWDQGXVHRIWKLVVLWHZLOOFRQIRUPZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFRGHVDQGRUGLQDQFHV ,FRQVHQWWRWKHUHSURGXFWLRQRIWKLVVLWHSODQSURYLGHGWKDWLIPRGLILFDWLRQVDUHPDGHWKHSURIHVVLRQDOVZKR
$OOQHZRUUHORFDWHGXWLOLWLHVZLOOEHSODFHGXQGHUJURXQG PDNHVXFKFKDQJHVDVVXPHIXOOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DQGOLDELOLW\IRUWKHPRGLILHGSRUWLRQVRIWKHSODQ
6WUXFWXUHVDQGODQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQDWULDQJOHPHDVXUHGEDFN IURPWKHSURSHUW\OLQHDQG
DORQJWKHSURSHUW\OLQHRQHDFKVLGHRIWKHGULYHZD\VHQWUDQFHVZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDWD
PD[LPXPKHLJKWRI
6WUXFWXUHVDQGODQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQDWULDQJOHPHDVXULQJ [ DORQJWKHSURSHUW\OLQHVZLOOEH 6,*1$785(2)&23<5,*+72:1(5
PDLQWDLQHGDWDPD[LPXPKHLJKWRI
$Q\OLJKWLQJZLOOEHSODFHGVRDVWRGLUHFWOLJKWDZD\IURPDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDOGLVWULFWVDQGZLOOQRW
H[FHHGRQHIRRWFDQGOHDWWKHSURSHUW\OLQH1RQRLVHRGRURUYLEUDWLRQZLOOEHDGPLWWHGDWDQ\
OHYHOH[FHHGLQJWKHJHQHUDOOHYHORIQRLVHRGRURUYLEUDWLRQHPLWWHGE\XVHVLQWKHDUHDRXWVLGH 35,17('1$0(2)&23<5,*+72:1(5
RIWKHVLWH
2ZQHUVRISURSHUW\DGMDFHQWWRSXEOLFULJKWVRIZD\ZLOOKDYHWKHUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUPDLQWDLQLQJDOO
ODQGVFDSLQJORFDWHGZLWKLQWKHULJKWVRIZD\LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDSSURYHGSODQV
'$7(
$OOURRIWRSHTXLSPHQWDQGVDWHOOLWHGLVKHVVKDOOEHVFUHHQHGWRWKHKHLJKWRIWKHWDOOHVW
HTXLSPHQW
$OOVHUYLFHDUHDVVKDOOEHVFUHHQHGWRFRQFHDOWUDVKFRQWDLQHUVORDGLQJGRFNVWUDQVIRUPHUV
EDFNIORZSUHYHQWHUVDQGRWKHUPHFKDQLFDORUHOHFWULFDOHTXLSPHQWIURPH\HOHYHODGMDFHQWWRDOO
SXEOLFVWUHHWV
%DUEHGUD]RURUFRQFHUWLQDZLUH RUVLPLODU VKDOOQRWEHXVHGRQWKLVVLWHZKHUHYLVLEOHIURPSXEOLF
VWUHHWVRUDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDODUHDV
$OOVLJQDJHUHTXLUHVVHSDUDWHUHYLHZVDSSURYDOVDQGSHUPLWV1RVLJQVDUHDSSURYHGSHUWKLVSODQ
0'(96'(912
'6'.,9$123$3312
9$5,$1&(12
=21,1*0$3
48$57(56(&7,2112
6&$/(
$376DW1:&&(175$/$9( 3,(562167 35($33/,&$7,210((7,1*
72'' 3+2(1,;$5,=21$
$662&,$7(6 5$1*(:$7(5
237,2135($33/,&$7,21 &21&(378$/6,7(3/$1
5($/(67$7( $
Exhibit 5
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Exhibit 6
Page 210
678&&2 678&&2
$ %
678&&2 678&&2
& '
&20326,7(6,',1* &08%/2&.
( )
0(7$/3$1(/6 0(7$/0(6+
* +
0DWHULDOV%RDUG
$376DW1:&&(175$/$9( 3,(562167
ŏ3KRHQL[$UL]RQD
3URMHFW1XPEHUŏ
Page 211 237,2135($33/,&$7,21
Exhibit 7
Page 212
Page 213
67(9(1'
9225+((6
'DWH
6 LJ
QH G
/,&(16((;3,5(6
Page 214
67(9(1'
9225+((6
'DWH
6 LJ
QH G
/,&(16((;3,5(6
EXHIBIT C
Page 215
E CAMELBACK RD
W CAMELBACK RD
PR
IVA
TE
W MARIPOSA ST
E MARIPOSA ST
N CENTRAL AVE N 1S
T ST
Page 216
W PIERSON ST E PIERSON ST
ALLEY
N 1ST AVE
W ELM ST
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 Property Location: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
Planning & Development Department 0 80 160 320 Feet
´
EXHIBIT D
Page 217
C-2
SP* E CAMELBACK RD
W CAMELBACK RD
C-2
R-3 C-2 H-R*
R-5 PR
IVA
R-3 TE
HP R-5 HP R-5 R-3 C-2*
W MARIPOSA ST
HP*
R-3
E MARIPOSA ST
C-2
PUD*
R-5 N CENTRAL AVE PUD* N 1S
T ST
HP R-5
Page 218
W PIERSON ST E PIERSON ST
R-3 HP
R1-6
R-5 H-R
ALLEY C-2 H-R
C-2 R-3
N 1ST AVE
W ELM ST
R-5
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4 Property Location: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
Planning & Development Department 0 80 160 320 Feet
´
EXHIBIT E
Page 219
OFFICAL RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER
HELEN PURCELL
20150908025 12/2412015 09:36 #6089G
ELECTRONIC RECORDING (6 pages)
ORDINANCE G-6089
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 PROPERTY DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-26-15-4) FROM C-2 TOD-1 (1.59 ACRES), R-3
TOD-1 (0.82 ACRES), R-5 TOD-1 (0.56 ACRES), & P-1 TOD-1
(0.56 ACRES) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT- 3.53
ACRES).
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The zoning of an approximately 3.53 acre property located at
the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street in a portion of Section 20,
Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Attachment "A", is
hereby changed from C-2 TOD-1 (1.59 Acres), R-3 TOD-1 (0.82 Acres), R-5 TOD-1
(0.56 Acres), & P-1 TOD-1 (0.56 Acres) to PUD (Planned Unit Development- 3.53
Acres).
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 Attachment "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 compliance with the PUD
Page 220
narrative and the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same
manner as a violation of the
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Omninet- West PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be
consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped October 14,
2015.
2. The property owner shall provide a deposit in the amount of $50,000 into a
Street Transportation Department escrow account at the City of Phoenix to
be utilized for traffic calming measures in the Pierson Place Historic
District. These funds may be contributed toward the purchase and
installation of such devices as roundabouts, speed humps/cushions, or
raised crosswalks (speed tables), limited turning, traffic diverters, GATES
or other such traffic calming or management tools for the area bounded by
Central Avenue, Camelback Road, 7th Avenue, and the Grand Canal.
Distribution of funds shall be at the mutual agreement of the FIVE
MEMBER NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC TEAM Board of Directors of
Pierson Place Historic District, the residents on affected streets and the
section, in accordance 'Nith all procedures required by the city. Owner may
apply for reimbursement of escrow funds from the Street Transportation
Department if no formal SPECIAL petition has been submitted within 3 5
years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Street
Transportation Department may study any potential traffic impacts
concurrent with construction to expedite the study process and
construction of any traffic mitigation measures as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
3. Developer shall install a monument proximate to the northwest corner of
the site identifying the Pierson Place Historic District and facing toward the
Light Rail station, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The monument shall be similar to the existing Pierson Place
Historic District Monument located proximate to the southwest corner of
3rd Avenue and Camelback Road, or as otherwise agreed upon by the
developer and the Board of Directors of the Pierson Place Historic District.
4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT A DIRECTIONAL RETAIL
DRIVEWAY TO DIRECT RETAIL TRAFFIC AWAY FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
-2- Ordinance G-6089
Page 221
5. THE APPROVAL SHALL BE CONDITIONED UPON DEVELOPMENT
COMMENCING WITHIN SEVEN (7) YEARS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THIS CHANGE OF ZONING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 506.8.1 OF THE PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE. (FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS STIPULATION, DEVELOPMENT SHALL
COMMENCE WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS AND
ERECTION OF BUILDING WALLS ON SITE).
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 C of Phoenix this 16th day of December,
2015.
ATTEST:
ACTING
--=-~----'""'---"<;;=---- City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
ACnNQ
~--r-+-------'=-----.~---+---'7'""---- City Manager
#93) 12/16/15
Attachments:
A- Legal Description (1 Page)
B- Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
-3- Ordinance G-6089
Page 222
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-26-15-4
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 46 TROUGH 56, STANLEY PLACE, RECORDED AS
BOOK 18 OF MAPS, PAGE 21 LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST
OF THE GILA RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, SAID
POINT BEING MARKED BY A STONE IN A HANDHOLE LYING SOUTH 89 42'53"
EAST A DISTANCE OF 2664.89 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 20, SAID POINT BEING MARKED BY A BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE;
THENCE SOUTH 00 00'00" EAST (BASIS OF BEARINGS) A DISTANCE OF 659.91
FEET TO THE CENTER POINT IN THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND
WEST PIERSON STREET, SAID POINT BEING MARKED BY 2 BRASS CAP
REFERENCE MONUMENTS LYING NORTH 53 31'35"WEST A DISTANCE OF 59.09
FEET, AND SOUTH 55 54'14" WEST A DISTANCE OF 57.79 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 43'49" WEST 50.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 00'00" EAST PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET WEST OF THE
NORTH- SOUTH MIDSECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, 30.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 53, BEING MARKED BY A FOUND "X" IN
CONCRETE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89 43'49" WEST PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET NORTH OF
THE CENTERLINE OF WEST PIERSON STREET, 379.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 56, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH
CAP L#l34711;
THENCE NORTH 00 00'00" EAST 135.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 56, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH CAP L#41 076;
THENCE NORTH 89 43'26" WEST 73.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 46, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH CAP L#41076;
THENCE NORTH 00 00'00" EAST 135.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 46, BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR WITH CAP LS#41076;
THENCE SOOTH 89 43'03" EAST 245.02 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#38175;
THENCE SOUTH 62 41 '29" EAST 79.57 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#38175;
THENCE SOUTH 62 43'59" EAST 78.54 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#39131;
THENCE SOUTH 60 22'32" EAST 25.98 FEET BEING MARKED BY A PK NAIL WITH
TAG LS#38175;
-4- Ordinance G-6089
Page 223
THENCE SOUTH 57 07'28" EAST 26.07 FEET BEING MARKED A 1/2" REBAR WITH
CAP LS#38168;
THENCE NORTH 89 59'52" EAST 7.65 FEET BEING MARKED BY A 1/2" REBAR
WITH CAP LS#38175;
THENCE SOUTH 00 15'26" EAST 29.09 FEET BEING MARKED BY A WITNESS
CORNER LYING 1.80 FEET EAST, SAID POINT BEING A "X" IN CONCRETE;
THENCE NORTH 89 59'51" EAST 14.22 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF CENTRAL AVENUE, BEING MARKED BY A "X" IN CONCRETE;
THENCE SOUTH 00 00'00" EAST PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET WEST OF THE
NORTH- SOUTH MIDSECTION LINE, 142.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
NET AREA OF PARCEL IS 100,792 S.F. OR 2.3139 ACRES MORE OR LESS
-5- Ordinance G-6089
Page 224
ATrACHMENT B
ORDINANCE LOCATIO,N MAP
Z:mlng Case Number: Z-26-15-4:
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS: * Zoning Overlay: NfA
sUBJEcr AREA: • • • • , Hanning Vlllage: Alhambra
I I I I rum~ NORTHERN AVE
[ IJ I I I I I I ,'Will f--
jw CAMELBACK RDl GLENDALE AVE
L~ ) Puc·l
BETHANY HOME RD
----.-- ,
l T •§3 CAMELBACK RD
Page 225 lwPIERS~NSTII 2_ ___: Ci
!
a::
I li~UJEf ~ e - '1
ffi ~" (Y)
":-"" ~
~ ~
1-
I
II ~c::J § ~e- J~ I I 1- f'...
WELM ST <( f-
~ ~- ( I ,OJ
~
TT z
w
u
1-
u"..
""",~~
M ..-
\~
uH
II ~ ~ \
W HIGH LAND AV I L Z-26-15-4
)_ ]::
u --
N
- II
I I I
500 250 0 500 Feet NOTTOSCALE
N
~ Drawn Date: 11/12/2015
..
N:\IS_ Team\C,.e_Fundtons\Zonlng\SuppMaps_O.dMaps'.20150rd\Formai_D-ec_2_2015\Z-26-15-4.1Tll
-6- Ordinance G-6089
EXHIBIT F
Page 226
R-4 321 311 301 R-3 HP 5110 P-1
5115 5115
15 17 21 27 31
215 221 225 231
CENTRAL AVE
45 39 37 21 17 15 11 28 32 36 40 44
5115 50 210 220 226 232 236
5104 214
MEDLOCK DR
33 29 25
Z-153-02
400 320 320 302 42 42 38 36 34 30 28 24 20 16 R-3 5070
203 211 219 225 231 239
C-2 PR
PASADENA AVE
5040 234
*
15 11
R-3 SP HP
5050 5038 244
337 325 321
IVATE
31 31
21 21
31 31
31 31
10 207
43 39 37 31 31 5042
Z-153-02
33 23 5032
31 31 5038
P-1
31 31
ALLEY
21 21 21 21 5019
P-1
5034 225
2N D
Z-SP-12-99
140 245
5026 5022
444 400 5009
142 138 5007
C-2
114 110 100 24 22 16 14 10 5006
4 128 214
ST 300 306
CAMELBACK RD
132 132
P-1 P-1
HP HP R-3 C-2 * C-2
Z-83-05 HP
Z-132-81
Z-83-05
555 13 15 15
H-R *
Z-35-14
C-2
59 111 201 221 233
R-5
312 22
305 R-5 77
HP R-3 C-2
C/Z-43-81
314 314 312 310 198 194 102 100 14
40 114
R-3
96 54 120
98 42
* 4902
R-5 HP
Z-83-05 Z-25-10 38 42 108 130 146 150
MARIPOSA ST
3RD AVE
315 313 311 307 301 151 149 147 99 97 89
95 45 39 31
P-1
R-3
HP R-5
336 318 316 314 35 45 75 111 121 133 141 149
312 310 306 302 150 144 140 134 130 126 122 110 106 102 4801 4900
Z-83-05
4750 4750 44 50 60 64 70 74 78
R-5
173 4750
4750 4750
1ST ST
167 161 155 149 4750
C-2
311 309 106 301 143 137 131 125 119 113 107 101 4745
PIERSON ST
H-R
H-R
R-3
1ST AVE
365 361 4750
CENTRAL AVE
174 4737
168 162 156 150 144 138 132 126 120 114 108 102 4733
HP ELM ST
33 35 45 55 63 71 75 77
Z-83-05
173 167 161 155 149 143 137 131 125 119 113 107 101
R-5
P-1 *
338 328 322 4700
R1-6
Z-341-83
320 304 4702
174 168 162 156 150 144 138 4715
114 108 102
HIGHLAND AVE
126 120
337 329 169 141 135 133 127 119 115 109
R-3
PUD
333 325 319 315 305 303 301
4635 103 4701
410 406 402 310 308 306 304 302 256 208 204 200 190 178 176 100 36
Z-31-12
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
NORTH BETHANY HOME RD
400 200 0 400 Feet CAMELBACK RD
43RD AVE 7ST AVE
7TH AVE Z-26-15
19TH AVE
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
35TH AVE
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE 27TH AVE
I-17
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Ed Bull/ Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
FROM:
C-2 TOD-1 (1.59 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-26-15
DATE:
5/21/15 R-3 TOD-1 (.82 a.c.)
R-5 TOD-1 (.56 a.c.)
REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
P-1 TOD-1 (.56 a.c.)
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.53 Acres QS 18-27 H-8 TO: PUD, (3.53 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2, R-3, R-5, P-1 23, 12, 24, N/A 27, 14, 29, N/A
PUD 286 286
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
S:\Department Share\IS Share\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2015\Z-26-15.mxd
Page 227
EXHIBIT G
Page 228
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Bradley Wylam, Planner I, Assisting
August 17, 2022
ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT 4
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4
Location: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.95
Request: 1) Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding conditional
approval upon development commencing within seven (7)
years.
2) Technical correction for Stipulation 2.
Applicant: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA
Owner: Kim Sperry, Omninet Central LP
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA
ACTIONS:
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with additional stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Alhambra Village
Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this request on July 26, 2022 but did
not have a quorum.
DISCUSSION:
Ed Bull, representative with Burch & Cracchiolo PA, described the subject site
and provided an overview of the original PUD rezoning case. He noted that
Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval upon development commencing
within seven years is requested to be extended by one year to allow time for the
final plans to be approved. He stated that the project has received preliminary
site plan approval. He stated that delays regarding utility relocation and other
necessary approvals will likely prevent development from occurring within the
stipulated time frame. He noted that the proposed project does not represent an
increase in building height or density compared to the original project. He stated
that site improvements have been made to address concerns from the City
including demolition of existing buildings and fencing of the site.
Page 229
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
Page 2
Ken Waters, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the development
currently proposed for the site is not consistent with what was presented to the
public during the public hearing process for the original rezoning case in 2015.
He stated that the proposed retail space on the ground floor was not consistent
with the retail space proposed in the original proposal. He stated that the original
approval for the maximum height of the development was modeled after the
Walkable Urban Code and that the development would not meet required
standards to develop a 5-story building. He stated that there are existing parking
issues in the surrounding area and the proposed project does not alleviate those
concerns. He proposed that the time extension be denied unless at least 15,000
square feet of ground floor retail space and two floors of underground parking
were developed.
Ray Muench, member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
reiterated the concerns made by Mr. Waters. He stated that there are major
concerns in the area regarding parking and traffic. He stated that he had
concerns about the proposed retail space appearing to be more oriented toward
the residents of the development rather than to the general public.
Mr. Bull stated that some principles of the Walkable Urban Code were included in
the PUD Narrative, but that the development has been deemed to be compliant
with the approved PUD zoning. He stated that the development has been given
preliminary site plan approval. He stated that the current PHO request is related
to the time extension only. He noted that the site plan in question includes
coworking space, live/ work units, and approximately 3,000 square feet of ground
floor retail. He stated that the development would follow Walkable Urban Code
concepts by placing buildings proximate to Central Avenue and Pierson Street,
but that the PUD does not regulate the number of stories or establish a bonus
system to allow the proposed height. He stated that a second floor of
underground parking was previously proposed, but that the number of parking
spaces is to be determined based on the final mix of residential units and retail
space and that a second floor of parking has been determined to be
unnecessary. He stated that the site plan proposes 283 parking spaces on the
site, which is greater than the 263 spaces that are required.
Adam Stranieri, Planning Hearing Officer, stated that one item of correspondence
was received prior to the hearing from Mr. Waters. He noted that the Alhambra
Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this request on July 26, 2022
but did not have a quorum. He stated that the PHO request is regarding a time
extension for a conditional approval upon development commencing within 7
years of the original approval. He noted that the PUD development narrative is
not being reviewed and that the narrative includes development standards,
design guidelines, and use standards that are not under review in this PHO
hearing. He stated that a PUD amendment would be needed to alter any of these
regulatory components of the PUD. He stated that a time extension of one year is
Page 230
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
Page 3
reasonable given the delays caused by the ongoing pandemic and infrastructure
issues. He stated that the request from Mr. Waters to impose conditions
regarding the provision of retail uses, the size of retail spaces, and parking
standards would belong in the PUD development narrative but are not
appropriately appended to the conditional time stipulation currently under review.
He stated that the proposed stipulation modification is recommended to be
approved. He noted that the site has been identified as archaeologically sensitive
and three additional stipulations are recommended to be added. Mr. Bull stated
that a July 22, 2021 archaeological assessment from the Archaeology
Department noted that no archaeological work is necessary for the project. Mr.
Stranieri noted that the status may have been reviewed by the Archaeology
Department, but that the stipulations are recommended to be included.
FINDINGS:
1) The request to modify Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval of
development is recommended to be approved. The request will allow an
additional year (an increase from 7 to 8 years total) to commence
development. The applicant noted unexpected delays related to the
ongoing pandemic and infrastructure issues.
2) The site is identified as archaeologically sensitive and three additional
stipulations are recommended to be included to address requirements for
archaeological survey and testing.
STIPULATIONS:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Omninet - West PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted
to the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City
Council approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative
shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
October 14, 2015.
2. The property owner shall provide a deposit in the amount of $50,000 into
a Street Transportation Department escrow account at the City of
Phoenix to be utilized for traffic calming measures in the Pierson Place
Historic District. These funds may be contributed toward the purchase
and installation of such devices as roundabouts, speed humps/cushions,
or raised crosswalks (speed tables), limited turning, traffic diverters,
gates or other such traffic calming or management tools for the area
bounded by Central Avenue, Camelback Road, 7th Avenue, and the
Grand Canal. Distribution of funds shall be at the mutual agreement of
the five member neighborhood traffic team, the residents on affected
streets, and the City of Phoenix Streets TRANSPORTATION Department
Page 231
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
Page 4
Safety and Neighborhood Traffic section. Owner may apply for
reimbursement of escrow funds from the Street Transportation
Department if no special petition has been submitted within 5 years from
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3. Developer shall install a monument proximate to the northwest corner of
the site identifying the Pierson Place Historic District and facing toward
the Light Rail station, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The monument shall be similar to the existing Pierson Place
Historic District Monument located proximate to the southwest corner of
3rd Avenue and Camelback Road, or as otherwise agreed upon by the
developer and the Board of Directors of the Pierson Place Historic
District.
4. The developer shall construct a directional retail driveway to direct retail
traffic away from the neighborhood as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY
OFFICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA
TESTING AND SUBMIT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY
THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING,
LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.
6. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW
OF THE RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL
CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS.
7. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE
ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER
SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE ALL GROUND-DISTURBING
ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33- FOOT RADIUS OF THE DISCOVERY,
NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME FOR THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE MATERIALS.
8. The approval shall be conditioned upon development commencing within
5. EIGHT (8) seven (7) years of the City Council approval of this change of
zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. (For purposes of this stipulation, development shall
Page 232
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4
Page 5
commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building
walls on site).
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time
through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a
disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or
services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. To request a reasonable
accommodation, please contact Les Scott at leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or 602-376-3981
or TTY: 7-1-1.
Page 233
ATTACHMENT C
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 6, 2022
REVISED October 17, 2022
ITEM NO: 16
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4
Location: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Pierson Street
Request: x Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval upon
development commencing within seven (7) years.
x Technical correction for Stipulation 2.
Acreage: 2.95
Applicant: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Owner: Kim Sperry, Omninet Central, LP
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
ACTIONS:
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Alhambra 7/26/2022 No quorum.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: Approval with additional stipulations.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer
recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve PHO-1-22--Z-26-15-4, per
the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with an additional stipulation to require that prior
occupancy, the developer must provide a qualified engineer’s report certifying the average
annual interior noise exposure for any residential unit or enclosed public assembly area will not
exceed 45 decibels.
Maker: Busching
Second: Gaynor
Vote: 7-1-1 (Boyd) (Howard conflict)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The request to modify Stipulation 5 regarding conditional approval of development is
recommended to be approved. The request will allow an additional year (an increase
from 7 to 8 years total) to commence development. The applicant noted unexpected
delays related to the ongoing pandemic and infrastructure issues.
Page 234
2. The site is identified as archaeologically sensitive and three additional stipulations are
recommended to be included to address requirements for archaeological survey and
testing.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Omninet - West PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative
date stamped October 14, 2015.
2. The property owner shall provide a deposit in the amount of $50,000 into a Street
Transportation Department escrow account at the City of Phoenix to be utilized for
traffic calming measures in the Pierson Place Historic District. These funds may be
contributed toward the purchase and installation of such devices as roundabouts,
speed humps/cushions, or raised crosswalks (speed tables), limited turning, traffic
diverters, gates or other such traffic calming or management tools for the area
bounded by Central Avenue, Camelback Road, 7th Avenue, and the Grand Canal.
Distribution of funds shall be at the mutual agreement of the five member
neighborhood traffic team, the residents on affected streets, and the City of Phoenix
Streets TRANSPORTATION Department Safety and Neighborhood Traffic section.
Owner may apply for reimbursement of escrow funds from the Street Transportation
Department if no special petition has been submitted within 5 years from the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
3. Developer shall install a monument proximate to the northwest corner of the site
identifying the Pierson Place Historic District and facing toward the Light Rail station,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department. The monument shall be
similar to the existing Pierson Place Historic District Monument located proximate to
the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue and Camelback Road, or as otherwise agreed
upon by the developer and the Board of Directors of the Pierson Place Historic
District.
4. The developer shall construct a directional retail driveway to direct retail traffic away
from the neighborhood as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE, THE
APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND SUBMIT AN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING
AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.
6. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN
CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH
DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL
CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.
7. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING
CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE ALL
GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33- FOOT RADIUS OF THE
DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME FOR THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE MATERIALS.
Page 235
8. The approval shall be conditioned upon development commencing within EIGHT (8)
5. seven (7) years of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance
with Section 506.B.1 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. (For purposes of this
stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and
erection of building walls on site).
9. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE A QUALIFIED
ENGINEER’S REPORT CERTIFYING THE AVERAGE ANNUAL INTERIOR NOISE
EXPOSURE FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR ENCLOSED PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
AREA WILL NOT EXCEED 45 DECIBELS.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Les Scott at 602-261-8980, leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 236
ATTACHMENT D
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/ PHO-1-22—Z-26-15-4 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Northwest corner of opposition x applicant
Central Avenue and
Pierson Street
APPEALED FROM: PC 126 West Pierson Street
October 6, 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85013
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC Ken Waters
HEARING November 2, 2022 602-373-1902
kennywaters602@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The applicant is not honoring their 14,990 SF of Walkable Urban Mixed Use
entitlement and original plan. They are sliding in residential support amenities into the
ground floor retail space; decreasing more retail space in order to also drop an
additional level of parking. It’s a classic “Bait and Switch” before and after winning
entitlements.
RECEIVED BY: Chase Hales RECEIVED ON: October 11, 2022
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
Diana Hernandez Applicant
David Urbinato Adam Stranieri (for PHO Appeals)
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 237
Page 238
ATTACHMENT E
Bradley A Wylam
From: Kenny W
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 9:03 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: Today's PHO Hearing, Item #3. PHO-1-22-Z-26-15-4 NWC of Central and Pierson St
Re: PHO Agenda Item #3 : PHO-1-22-Z-26-15-4, NWC of Central Ave and Pierson Street. Applicant:
Omninet/RangeWater via Ed Bull
Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 10am.
Position: Denial of extension request; or … Adding a development stipulation that states: an extension is hereby granted
for one additional year on the development STIPULATION condition that all original 14,000 sq ft of Walkable Urban
PUBLIC retail space that was planned along the light rail station and Central Ave in the heart of Uptown is indeed built
on the ground floor, AND two (2) floors of underground parking are also built, as both retail and parking elements were
originally represented and highly touted when the applicant used those elements to win the 5th floor WU Code bonus
award in 2015 … based upon their incorporated WU Code representations that were modeled into their PUD award. The
applicant is now making highly significant changes to the once Walkable Urban Project, going back on their word, and
making the previous staff and public participation process a total sham. The question is, is that even legal? It certainly
deserves another public process as this WU to Non-WU switch-a-roo has gone under nearly EVERYONE’s radar.
Including, I reckon, a lot of the planning staff’s radar as well.
Dear Planning Hearing Officers,
There is a great, great deal more to this PHO case than meets the eye with its seemingly simple extension request.
Walkable Urban Code planning and development was coming to the heart of our Uptown. Evidently, not anymore? How
is that possible? BUT … they’ll keep the bonus award of a 5 th floor while scuttling the very public retail elements that
won them the Walkable Urban bonus award? Saying it’s not fair doesn’t begin to address this post- entitlement planning
practice.
Furthermore, Mr. Ed Bull just informed me that RangeWater, the ‘new’ developer/applicant since the Spring of 2021 is
OUT – they have dropped out of escrow with Omninet and will NOT be developing the site. Days or hours before the
extension hearing?! And when they were rumored to have entered escrow in the spring of 2021 last year, we were all
far beyond any and all Covid hardships. Covid economic stimulus’s had actually SPIKED the markets and Zoom efficiency
had taken over. So that hardship excuse is null and void.
This Z-26-15-4 PUD was approved in December, 2015 with a firm 7-year expiration STIPULATON. No ifs, ands or buts.
Done so in a time period that has been the most wildly successful real estate market in Phoenix’s history. But the
owner, Omninet, NEVER sought to develop the site themselves. They almost immediately put the site up for sale after
winning the zoning entitlements. Evidently they were asking too much and prospective buyer after buyer passed on
Omninet’s asking price. Until RW, then not RW either. This is exactly why it was capped at seven years – to spur actual
development. Not entitlement enrichment and speculation.
I hope you will insist on proper planning practices and not reward this kind of planning and development behavior in
Phoenix. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Page 239
Ken Waters
Pierson Place resident
Page 240
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Planning Hearing Officer Application PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 -
Approximately 130 feet North of the Northwest Corner of 19th Avenue and
Latona Lane (Ordinance G-7054)
Request to hold a public hearing and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to
consider the Planning Commission recommendation by the City Council on matters
heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Aug. 17, 2022, and the Planning Commission
on Oct. 6, 2022.
Summary
Application: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Existing Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 5.12
Owner: Bella Rosa Partners, LLC
Applicant and Representative: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan date
stamped July 28, 2017.
2. Review of conceptual elevations by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 4.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug.
9, 2022, and recommended approval by a vote of 7-4.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Aug. 17, 2022, and
recommended approval with modifications and additional stipulations.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
on Oct. 11, 2022.
Location
Page 241
Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 8030 S. 19th Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 242
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 26, 2022
Deputy City Manager
Planning and Development Director
From: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Assistant Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM_53 ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2022, PUBLIC HEARING/
FORMAL AGENDA-PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 (G-7054)-APPROXIMATELY 130
FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AVENUE AND
LATONA LANE
53 is a Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption of a request to modify stipulations from
Item_,
an approved 2017 rezoning case. Modification of Stipulation case PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 is a
request to modify stipulations for a 5.12-acre parcel located approximately 130 feet north of
the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane for a proposed single family
residential.
This request is to continue the item to December 7, 2022, in order to allow applicant to
coordinate and address any questions and concerns with the council members.
Staff recommends continuing this item to the December 7, 2022 City Council Formal
meeting.
Approved:
Alan Stephenson
Deputy City Manager/Planning and Development Director
*Attachment - email from applicant dated October 26, 2022
Page 243
ffi!ITerrascaoo
October 26, 2022
Planning and Development Department
Attn: Racelle Escolar - Principal Planner
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Request for City Councill Hearing Continuance
Case#: PHO-2-22-Z-47-17-8
Greetings,
On behalf of the Property Owner, I would like to request a continuance for the Case#
listed above. The City Council hearing is scheduled for November 2, 2022, at 2:30PM. I
would like to request that the case be continued to the City Council Hearing date on
December 7, 2022. We request this continuance so that we may have time to
coordinate and address any questions and concerns with the council members
regarding this case.
Thank You,
Kevin Zenk
Planner II
7507 E. McDonald Dr., STE #2
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
O: (602) 666-2447
C: (480) 740-8950
E: kzenk@scapeGOATds.com
scapeGOATds.com
terrascape.us
Page 244
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-47-17-8 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6560.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately
130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane in a portion of
Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped JUNE 30, 2022 July 28, 2017, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:
A. THE SITE PLAN SHALL DEPICT STAGGERED FRONT
SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS, SUCH THAT
ANY TWO ADJACENT LOTS SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM
VARIATION IN FRONT SETBACK OF 4 FEET.
2. All sidewalks shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped
strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include a
minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on
center or equivalent groupings staggered along both sides of the
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 245
The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained
by the HOA.
3. Architectural elevations shall be presented to the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to final site plan
approval.
4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency
with the Rio Montaña Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through
the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary
site plan approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes
only. Specific development standards and requirements may be
determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and
Development Department.
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED AUGUST 17, 2022, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
5. COVERED PORCHES A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET IN AREA
AT A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE
FRONT YARD OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE HOMES IN A
SUBDIVISION. NO PORCH SHALL TERMINATE WITHIN THE PLANE
OF A DOOR OR WINDOW.
6. The perimeter wall adjacent to 19th Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot
5. offsets at a minimum spacing of every 50 feet and material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative
element, such as tile, glass insets, or stamped designs, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. Fence and wall materials adjacent to common areas and open space as
6. depicted on the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017 shall consist of
wrought iron, split rail, corral fencing, or a combination of 3 feet of solid
masonry topped by open wrought iron or a similar material, or a
combination of the aforementioned fence types and open farm fencing,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE MINIMUM 50-FEET OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 19TH AVENUE.
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE
DETACHED SIDEWALK AND MINIMUM 11-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE
STRIP LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND SIDEWALK,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. LANDSCAPE STRIP PLANTING
REQUIREMENTS TO BE APPROVED BY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT.
Page 246
9. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way totaling 25 feet for the east half
7. of 20th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
8. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
9. construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing
activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City
Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
12. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence,
10. and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX) 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.
13. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS
FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO
BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6560 this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6560 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site
until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 247
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 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 248
EXHIBIT A
Located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Gila
and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona. Described as follows:
Commencing at the East Quarter corner of said Section 1;
Thence North 01°00'21" East, along the East line of said Northeast Quarter, a
distance of 590.28 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence departing said East line, North 89°56'01" West, a distance of 658.57 feet;
Thence North 00°57'19" East, a distance of 336.90 feet;
Thence North 89°45'35" East, a distance of 658.94 feet to said East line;
Thence South 01°00'21" West, along said East line, a distance of 340.43 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 223,056.73 square feet or 5.12 acres, more or less.
Page 249
Page 250
Attachment B
Staff Report: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
APPLICATION #: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
LOCATION: Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th
Avenue and Latona Lane
EXISTING ZONING: R1-10
ACREAGE: 5.12
REQUEST: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance
with the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017.
2) Review of conceptual elevations by the Planning Hearing
Officer per Stipulation 4.
APPLICANT: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
OWNER: Bella Rosa Partners, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval with modifications and additional stipulations, as recommended by the Planning
Hearing Officer.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard the request on August 17, 2022 and recommended
approval with modifications and additional stipulations.
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this request on August 9, 2022
and recommended approval by a vote of 7-4.
Page 251
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site consists of 5.12 gross acres located approximately 130 feet north of the
northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane and is zoned R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District). The subject property constitutes only the southern portion of the
11.15 gross acres included in original Rezoning Case No. Z-47-17.
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with
the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017. The stipulated site plan (Exhibit H) depicted a
32-unit subdivision at a density of approximately 3.03 dwelling units per gross acre on the
full 11.15 gross acres of the original rezoning case area. Approximately 15 dwelling units
were depicted on the southern half of the site. The proposed conceptual site plan (Exhibit
G) depicts an 18-unit single-family subdivision at approximately 3.51 dwelling units per
gross acre. A single street terminating in a cul-de-sac on the western edge of the site is
proposed, and approximately 9 percent of the gross area would be reserved for common
area open space. The lots are 58 feet wide with minor variations around the cul-de-sac.
Building elevations were not provided in the original rezoning case. Stipulation 4 requires
that conceptual elevations be reviewed and approved for consistency with the Rio
Montaña Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process.
The proposed conceptual elevations (Exhibit I) depict single-story homes at a maximum
height of approximately 19 feet 6 inches to the ridge. These proposed elevations were
also redesigned and resubmitted after the August 9, 2022 South Mountain Village
Planning Committee (VPC) meeting to address their recommended additional stipulation
regarding covered porches. The elevations depict a variety of building materials (stone
façade, composite siding, wood elements, brick veneer), multiple building colors,
variation in roof design, and multiple architectural features (wood posts, gable
ornamentation, varied window sizes, decorative garage panels).
The appellant argues that the proposed increase in density is not appropriate for this
community and does not provide any transition to S-1 zoned properties in the
surrounding area. The appellant states that she supports preservation of rural character,
consistency with the Rio Montaña Area Plan, single-story development, and a maximum
density of 3 dwelling units per gross acre.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On January 10, 2018, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-47-17-8,
a request to rezone approximately 11.15 gross acres located approximately 130 feet
north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane from S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence), R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District), and R1-18 (Single-Family
Residence District) to R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District), subject to stipulations.
On February 20, 2019, the Phoenix City Council approved a modification of Stipulation 3
as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer regarding the timing of the elevation
review by the South Mountain VPC. This modification was intended to allow the VPC to
Page 252
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
review elevations prior to final site plan approval rather than preliminary site plan
approval. On August 9, 2022, the South Mountain VPC meeting reviewed the elevations
per Stipulation 3 as a separate agenda item from the PHO request and recommended
approval with two recommendations regarding staggered lots and front porches (Exhibit
K). For further discussion, see Planning Hearing Officer Finding #1.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Twelve letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns expressed
include the following:
• Increase in density compared with the stipulated site plan (12 letters)
• Building height (12 letters)
• Reduction in open space compared with the stipulated site plan (11 letters)
• Enhanced setbacks along 19th and 20th Avenues (11 letters)
• Increased shade and heat mitigation measures (11 letters)
• Concern regarding Rio Montaña Area Plan conformity (11 letters)
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site: R1-10 Vacant
North: R1-10 Vacant
South: S-1 Single-Family Residential
East: S-1 Tree Farm
(Across 19th Avenue)
West: S-1 Single-Family Residential
(Across 20th Avenue)
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:
1) The South Mountain Village Planning Committee (VPC) heard two agenda items
regarding this case at their August 9, 2022 meeting. The first (Agenda Item #7)
Page 253
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
was the PHO request itself. The second (Agenda Item #8) was for review and
comment on architectural elevations per the requirements of Stipulation 3. Note
that Stipulation 3 is redundant of, and less restrictive than, the requirement for
PHO review of conceptual elevations required by Stipulation 4. However, during
the review and comment item, the VPC made two recommendations regarding the
provision of staggered front setbacks and front porches. These recommendations
are addressed in these findings along with the consideration paid to the VPC’s
discussion during the PHO request itself.
2) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site
plan is recommended for approval with modifications to provide more standard
conformance language and to add a new sub-stipulation requiring staggered front
setbacks.
The subject property includes only the southern 5.12 gross acres of the 11.15
gross acres rezoned in the original case. The stipulated site plan depicted a 32-
unit single-family subdivision at approximately 3.03 dwelling units per gross acre
and approximately 13.9% open space. Units were arranged around four cul-de-
sacs oriented north/south, with most of the open space along the west property
line. The street running east/west through the site terminated in an emergency
gate along the west property line.
The proposed conceptual site plan depicts an 18-unit single-family subdivision at
approximately 3.51 dwelling units per gross acre, with approximately 9% open
space. Units are arranged along a street running east/west through the site. The
street terminates in a cul-de-sac along the west property line. Most of the open
space is along the west property line. The proposal is substantially similar to the
stipulated site plan, with the caveat that it is designed with less than half of the
original area. The density remains below, and the open space above, Ordinance
standards. The proposal is compatible with existing development in the
surrounding area.
A new sub-stipulation is recommended requiring staggered front setbacks. This
recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee. It is also consistent with design recommendations in
the Rio Montaña Area Plan (Page 39, Figure 71).
3) The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for review and approval per the
requirements of Stipulation 4. The stipulation has been complied with and is
recommended to be deleted and replaced with a standard language stipulation for
general conformance to the elevations provided. Stipulation 4 states that the
elevations submitted should be consistent with recommendations in the Rio
Montaña Area Plan. The elevations depict a variety of building materials (stone
façade, composite siding, wood elements, brick veneer), multiple building colors,
variation in roof design, and multiple architectural features (wood posts, gable
ornamentation, varied window sizes, decorative garage panels). This diversity is
Page 254
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
consistent with the Rio Montaña Area Plan and many of the design choices are
compatible with the rural and agricultural character described in the plan.
4) An additional stipulation is recommended to require front porches to be provided
per the requirements of the Baseline Area Overlay District (651.E.3.b.(4)). This
recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee. It is also consistent with the Rio Montaña Area Plan
(Page 22; Page 23; Page 44, Figures 97 and 100) and the intent of Stipulation 4.
5) The Street Transportation Department recommends one additional stipulation
addressing required dedications, detached sidewalks, and landscaping along 19th
Avenue. This stipulation is recommended for inclusion.
19th Avenue is identified on the City Council Approved Street Classification Map
as a D-Section Arterial roadway. This cross section requires a total right-of-way
dedication of 50-feet where the last 10-feet may consider a 10-foot-wide sidewalk
easement. Within the ROW/sidewalk easement, an 11-foot-wide landscape strip
located between back of curb and sidewalk is required to create a separated
detached sidewalk and allow planting space for trees to mature and to adequately
shade the sidewalk.
While Stipulation 2 (not a part of this request) addresses detached sidewalks,
requiring a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip between back of curb and
sidewalk, this does not override the City Council approved Street Classification
Map. While all other detached sidewalks within the development may allow the 5-
foot-wide landscape strip, 19th Avenue cannot and shall comply with the
recommended stipulation as described.
6) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the
Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application
requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to
record this form and deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped JUNE 30, 2022 July 28, 2017, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:
A. THE SITE PLAN SHALL DEPICT STAGGERED FRONT
SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS, SUCH THAT
ANY TWO ADJACENT LOTS SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM
VARIATION IN FRONT SETBACK OF 4 FEET.
Page 255
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
2. All sidewalks shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped
strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include a
minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on
center or equivalent groupings staggered along both sides of the
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained
by the HOA.
3. Architectural elevations shall be presented to the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to final site plan
approval.
4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency
with the Rio Montaña Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through
the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary
site plan approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes
only. Specific development standards and requirements may be
determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and
Development Department.
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED AUGUST 17, 2022, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
5. COVERED PORCHES A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET IN AREA
AT A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE
FRONT YARD OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE HOMES IN A
SUBDIVISION. NO PORCH SHALL TERMINATE WITHIN THE PLANE
OF A DOOR OR WINDOW.
6. The perimeter wall adjacent to 19th Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot
5. offsets at a minimum spacing of every 50 feet and material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative
element, such as tile, glass insets, or stamped designs, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. Fence and wall materials adjacent to common areas and open space as
6. depicted on the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017 shall consist of
wrought iron, split rail, corral fencing, or a combination of 3 feet of solid
masonry topped by open wrought iron or a similar material, or a
combination of the aforementioned fence types and open farm fencing,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 256
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE MINIMUM 50-FEET OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 19TH AVENUE.
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE
DETACHED SIDEWALK AND MINIMUM 11-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE
STRIP LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND SIDEWALK,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. LANDSCAPE STRIP PLANTING
REQUIREMENTS TO BE APPROVED BY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT.
9. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way totaling 25 feet for the east half
7. of 20th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
8. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
9. construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing
activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City
Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
12. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence,
10. and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX) 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.
13. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS
FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO
BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Exhibits
A – Appeal Document (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (12 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Recorded Ordinance from Rezoning Case No. Z-47-17 (5 pages)
Page 257
Staff Report – PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
October 6, 2022 Planning Commission
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-47-17 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped June 30, 2022 (1 page)
H – Stipulated Site Plan date stamped July 28, 2017 (2 pages)
I – Proposed Elevations date stamped August 17, 2022 (4 pages)
J – South Mountain Village Planning Committee Summary from August 9, 2022 for PHO-
2-22—Z-47-17-8 (4 pages)
K – South Mountain Village Planning Committee Summary from August 9, 2022 for
Review and Comment Item Regarding Stipulation 3 (4 pages)
L– PHO Summary for PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8 from August 17, 2022 (9 pages)
Page 258
EXHIBIT A
Page 259
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
LOCATION: Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of
19th Avenue and Latona Lane
PHO HEARING DATE: August 17, 2022 RECEIVED: August 24, 2022
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: October 6, 2022
PLANNING
COMMISSION
TENTATIVE DATE
November 2, 2022
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL: PHONE:
Jewel Clark
2020 West South Mountain Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041 480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
RECEIPT NUMBER:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The community opposes the change from 3 houses/acre to 3.5 houses/acre on this
application b/c it does not align with current appropriate density or even appropriate
transition to the surrounding established properties, which are all S-1 Acre + homes.
The community has worked hard to keep our rural character by keeping density in
new developments low, no more than 3 houses/acre, and working with developers to
align better to the Rio Montana Plan, which guides Our area's look/feel. While we are
grateful the development will be all single story, we do not want this density held up
as a precedent for any future approvals in our area. It is a disappointing exception to
the rule.
TAKEN BY: Camryn Thompson
c: Alan Stephenson Adam Stranieri
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Brad Wylam
Racelle Escolar Victoria Cipolla-Murillo
Julie Garcia
Ben Ernyei - Posting
GIS Team
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2022\DRAFT - PHO Internal Appeal Form -
PHO-2-22-Z-47-17-8.doc updated 8/24/2022 vcm
Page 260
Page 261
EXHIBIT B
Page 262
Bella Rosa
8020 S. 19th Ave
APN 300-17-004M
TSC# 1394
June 30, 2022 (Revised July 8, 2022)
Adam Stranieri
Planning Hearing Officer
252 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: PHO Stipulation Modification Request for Z-47-17-8 / 2-22—Z-4717-8
On behalf of Bella Rosa 19 Partners LLC (“Developer”), Scapegoat/Terrascape (“Applicant”) is
providing a written request for a PHO stipulation modification request. The Developer is proposing
to construct a single-family housing community consisting of eighteen (18) lots on a 5.12-acre (4.61
net acres) parcel of land located approximately 1,700 feet south of the SWC of W. Baseline Road
and S. 19th Ave in Phoenix, Arizona with an APN# 300-17-004M, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 – AERIAL MAP
CASE HISTORY
Z-47-17-8: The Site was rezoned from S-1 to R1-10 PRD approved by City Council on January 10,
2018, through Ordinance G-6405 with eight (8) stipulations.
PHO-1-18--Z-47-17-8: Amendment to the Site was applied for and approved by City Council on
February 20, 2019, through Ordinance G-6560 with 10-Stipulations (see Exhibit I).
At the time of the original rezoning and PHO Amendment, the Site was planned as a larger 10.56-
acre subdivision with 32 single-family lots. Access into the subdivision provided for an emergency
1|P a g e
Page 263
Bella Rosa
8020 S. 19th Ave
APN 300-17-004M
TSC# 1394
entry off of 20th Avenue, one resident entry off of 19th Avenue and four (4) cul-de-sacs connected
by 50’ wide private streets. See Exhibit II to view the original site plan.
After the rezoning, plans for the 10.56-acre parcel did not move forward and the subdivision was
not constructed. The property was eventually split into two separate parcels for purposes of
developing two different subdivisions using the recently approved R1-10 PRD zoning for single
family residential housing.
As the property has been subdivided into two parcels and the design intent has changed since
the original concept of the rezoning, a request for modifications from the original site plan and to
Ordinance G-6560 is being required.
PROPOSED STIPULATION MODIFICATIONS:
This PHO requests modifications to the following stipulations outlined in Ordinance G-6560, as listed
below:
Sitpulation 1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan dated
stamped July 28, 2017, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department. June 30, 2022, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Rationale: As plans for a single 10.56-acre subdivision are no longer being considered and the
lot has been split, the site plan for this particular parcel requires reconsideration for design and
lot layout for the newly split parcel. The size of the parcel still allows enough feasibility to meet
the requirements of R1-10 PRD with minor adjustments to the re-orientation and re-design of
the lot and street layout.
Sitpulation 4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency with
the Rio Montaña Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site
plan approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only.
Specific development standards and requirements may be determined by
the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development
Department. – PHO is required for this stipulation, as stated. PHO must be
complete prior to preliminary site plan submittal.
Rationale: The elevations attached with this application offer several design themes such as
Rustic Spanish Colonial and Western Ranch that are consistent with the Rio Montaña Area
Plan. Key architectural features include four (4) housing design options with a diverse façade
palette and varying trim and building materials. The conceptual layout of the houses
themselves will emphasis the house facade and maintain a 10’ garage setback from the
house’s façade. Material and palette changes help to create breaks in the façade which
specify undulation and changes in the overall building faces of each side.
As detailed in the attached exhibits, Bella Rosa, will continue to provide lotted single-family homes
with some minor changes from the original stipulated site plan. Careful consideration has gone
into planning the Site to create a community that is attractively designed and aesthetically
landscaped while maintain consistency with the development guidelines of the R1-10 PRD lotting
requirements. The property will be professional designed and managed to create the necessary
open space and amenities that are desired in residential communities. Residents will be able to
2|P a g e
Page 264
Bella Rosa
8020 S. 19th Ave
APN 300-17-004M
TSC# 1394
enjoy neighborhood style living with modern finishes and private indoor/outdoor living areas.
The primary access for the community will be located off 19th Avenue and will serve as the entry
and exit point for residents. The cul-de-sac provides for enough turning radii to allow easy
maneuverability for emergency and trash collector vehicles.
Standards for the Site will continue to follow the R1-10 district with necessary site plan
enhancements to achieve a slightly higher density from the original 3.5 DU/acre. The following
table describes the proposal in comparison to the requirement of R1-10:
Standards R1-10 PRD Proposed
Minimum Lot Width: 45’ (unless approved by either the 58’
design advisor or the Single-Family
Architectural Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))
Minimum Lot Depth: None, except 100’ adjacent to 140’ (Avg)
freeway or arterial
Dwelling Unit Density (units/gross 3.5; 4.5 with bonus 18 Lots / ± 5.12-Acres = 3.5 DU/Acre
acre)
Minimum Perimeter Building Setback: Street (front, rear, side) – 15’ Street (front, rear, side) – 15’
Property Line (rear) – 15’ (1-story); 20’ Property Line (rear) – 15’ (1-story);
(2-story) 20’ (2-story)
Property Line (rear) – 10’ (1-story); 15’ Property Line (rear) – 10’ (1-story);
(2-story) 15’ (2-story)
Landscaped Setback Adjacent to 15' average, 10' minimum 15' average, 10' minimum
Street: (Does not apply to lots fronting onto (Does not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets) perimeter streets)
Common Space Minimum: 5% 9%
CONCLUSION
Approval of the requested stipulation modification will allow the Project to move forward with the
development of Bella Rosa as previously discussed by the Phoenix City Council in its approval of
Z-47-17-8. This request maintains an efficient design layout that is similar to the originally approved
lot sizing and density requirements while accommodating a newly proposed layout that will
neither jeopardize the original intent nor compromise the remaining original stipulations. The
proposed zoning stipulation modification is accompanied by the following documents:
1. PHO Checklist
2. Ownership Verification form
3. Information Form
4. Preliminary Site plan
5. Conceptual Landscape Plan
6. Elevations
7. Parcel map (with project area identified)
8. Legal Description
3|P a g e
Page 265
EXHIBIT I
Page 266
Official Records of Maricopa County Recorder
ADRIAN FONTES
20190150288 03/05/2019 10:49
ELECTRONIC RECORDING
G6560-5-1-1--
ORDINANCE G-6560
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE
TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-47-17-8 PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-6405.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the property located
approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane in
a portion of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Attachment "A," are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
July 28, 2017, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
2. All sidewalks shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include a minimum 2-
inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings staggered along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by
the developer and maintained by the HOA.
3. Architectural elevations shall be presented to the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to FINAL preliminary site plan
approval.
Page 267
t
4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency with the
Rio Montana Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public
hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval.
This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer
and the Planning and Development Department. .
5. The perimeter wall adjacent to 19th Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets
at a minimum spacing of every 50 feet and material and textural differences, such
as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile, glass
insets, or stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. Fence and wall materials adjacent to common areas and open space as depicted
on the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017 shall consist of wrought iron, split rail,
corral fencing, or a combination of 3 feet of solid masonry topped by open
wrought iron or a similar material, or a combination of the aforementioned fence
types and open farm fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way totaling 25 feet for the east half of 20th
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) 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.
SECTION 2. Due to the site's specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6405, this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6405 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulations is a violation of the City of
2 Ordinance G-6560
Page 268
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until
all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 20th day of February,
2019.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
•)M#~~ City Cle
REVIEWED BY:
_W-=---r(¥2-==~-------City Manager
PL:tmi:LF19-0248:02/20/19:2093585v1
Exhibits:
A- Legal Description (1 Page)
B- Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
3 Ordinance G-6560
Page 269
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PH0-1-18--Z-47-17-8
PARCEL NO. 1: (Tax Parcel 300-17-004L)
THE NORTHERLY 396.52 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE EAST 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, SOMETIMES
DESCRIBED AS THE EAST HALF OF FARM UNIT "H", ACCORDING TO THE FARM
UNIT PLAT;
EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET THEREOF, AS TO CONVEYED TO MARICOPA
COUNTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF DEEDS, PAGE 418, .
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
PARCEL NO.2: (Tax Parcei300-17-004M)
THAT PORTION 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, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER; ·
EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 396.52 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 590.28 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET AS CONVEYED TO MARICOPA COUNTY BY QUIT
CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF DEEDS, PAGE 418, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
4 Ordin~nce G-6560
Page 270
EXHffiiTB
ORDINANCE LOCATION MAP
7Dning Case Nmnber: PH0-1-18-Z-47-17-8
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPUlATIONS: * Zoning Overlay: NIA
SUBJECT AREA: - - - - I Planning Village: South Mountain
w
~ ....
~.... t) lx;
~ 2 I "'¢
---------~)~ I I._wl-
. ,._o,..._,
,...,...,
il
i I,_ ----. . BROADWAY RDI---+--+-~-+-+-t-+-..-+-+-+-r--+--t
~~..,.:.I
R1-10 ]I
PRD~ SOUTHERN AVEI-+-t-+-+-t--1-+-t---'r-r-r ~-+-+-1
!1
1 1
BASELINE RD·1 ..1 I ,' I ,1 I ,1 , , I ,I 1 L.,
-j:
00881 NS RD I I I \, I I I I I )
~- ·-r I
I
Page 271 I
• \ \
\
'
\,__ PH0-1-18--Z-47-11-8
NOT TO SCALE
0 200 400 000 Feet
N
~ Drawn Date: 1124/2019
V""""\p
5 Ordinance G-6560
EXHIBIT II
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
EXHIBIT C
Page 275
S PRIVATE PRIVATE
W HARWELL RD
S 20TH DR
S 20TH LN
W PRIVATE RD
W IAN DR
S 21ST DR
LN S 19TH AVE
W DESERT
S 20TH AVE
Page 276
W LATONA LN
S 18TH AVE
W MAGDALENA LN
S 18TH LN
W SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Property Location: Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of
19th Avenue and Latona Lane
Planning & Development Department 0 120 240 480 Feet
´
EXHIBIT D
Page 277
S PRIVATE C-2*
R1-10* S 20TH DR PRIVATE
S 20TH LN W HARWELL RD
W PRIVATE RD
W IAN DR
S 21ST DR R1-10 PRD* S-1
LN S 19TH AVE
W DESERT
S 20TH AVE
Page 278
W LATONA LN
S 18TH AVE
W MAGDALENA LN
R1-18*
S 18TH LN
W SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
R1-10* R1-10* Maricopa County Assessor's Office
PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Property Location: Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of
19th Avenue and Latona Lane
Planning & Development Department 0 120 240 480 Feet
´
EXHIBIT E
Page 279
Official Records of Maricopa County Recorder
ADRIAN FONTES
20190150288 03/05/2019 10:49
ELECTRONIC RECORDING
G6560-5-1-1--
ORDINANCE G-6560
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE
TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-47-17-8 PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-6405.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the property located
approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Latona Lane in
a portion of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Attachment "A," are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
July 28, 2017, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
2. All sidewalks shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include a minimum 2-
inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings staggered along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by
the developer and maintained by the HOA.
3. Architectural elevations shall be presented to the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to FINAL preliminary site plan
approval.
Page 280
t
4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency with the
Rio Montana Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public
hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval.
This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer
and the Planning and Development Department. .
5. The perimeter wall adjacent to 19th Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets
at a minimum spacing of every 50 feet and material and textural differences, such
as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile, glass
insets, or stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. Fence and wall materials adjacent to common areas and open space as depicted
on the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017 shall consist of wrought iron, split rail,
corral fencing, or a combination of 3 feet of solid masonry topped by open
wrought iron or a similar material, or a combination of the aforementioned fence
types and open farm fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way totaling 25 feet for the east half of 20th
Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) 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.
SECTION 2. Due to the site's specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6405, this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6405 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulations is a violation of the City of
2 Ordinance G-6560
Page 281
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until
all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 20th day of February,
2019.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
•)M#~~ City Cle
REVIEWED BY:
_W-=---r(¥2-==~-------City Manager
PL:tmi:LF19-0248:02/20/19:2093585v1
Exhibits:
A- Legal Description (1 Page)
B- Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
3 Ordinance G-6560
Page 282
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PH0-1-18--Z-47-17-8
PARCEL NO. 1: (Tax Parcel 300-17-004L)
THE NORTHERLY 396.52 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE EAST 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, SOMETIMES
DESCRIBED AS THE EAST HALF OF FARM UNIT "H", ACCORDING TO THE FARM
UNIT PLAT;
EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET THEREOF, AS TO CONVEYED TO MARICOPA
COUNTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF DEEDS, PAGE 418, .
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
PARCEL NO.2: (Tax Parcei300-17-004M)
THAT PORTION 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, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER; ·
EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 396.52 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 590.28 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET AS CONVEYED TO MARICOPA COUNTY BY QUIT
CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF DEEDS, PAGE 418, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
4 Ordin~nce G-6560
Page 283
EXHffiiTB
ORDINANCE LOCATION MAP
7Dning Case Nmnber: PH0-1-18-Z-47-17-8
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPUlATIONS: * Zoning Overlay: NIA
SUBJECT AREA: - - - - I Planning Village: South Mountain
w
~ ....
~.... t) lx;
~ 2 I "'¢
---------~)~ I I._wl-
. ,._o,..._,
,...,...,
il
i I,_ ----. . BROADWAY RDI---+--+-~-+-+-t-+-..-+-+-+-r--+--t
~~..,.:.I
R1-10 ]I
PRD~ SOUTHERN AVEI-+-t-+-+-t--1-+-t---'r-r-r ~-+-+-1
!1
1 1
BASELINE RD·1 ..1 I ,' I ,1 I ,1 , , I ,I 1 L.,
-j:
00881 NS RD I I I \, I I I I I )
~- ·-r I
I
Page 284 I
• \ \
\
'
\,__ PH0-1-18--Z-47-11-8
NOT TO SCALE
0 200 400 000 Feet
N
~ Drawn Date: 1124/2019
V""""\p
5 Ordinance G-6560
EXHIBIT F
Page 285
7805 7809 7810 1947 1935 1905
2108 7808 7811
7813 7814
7809 7815
R1-10* 7818
S 20TH LN
S 20TH DR
7816 Z-66-01 C-2*
7704 R1-10
Z-109-00 2016 2008 7819 Z-101-76
7817 7820 2012 2004 7823
7824 W HARWELL RD 1843
7825 2017 2013 2009 2005
2110 2111 8020 C-2*
2106 8004 S-1 Z-110-07
R1-10 * Z-96-97
PHO3-11
Z-121-03
8019 8008
8107 8012
8111 8030
2107 8020
2111 2050 S-1 R1-10*
Z-58-07
W LATONA LN
2106 1820 R1-18* 1804 1802 1728 1724
S 19TH AVE
S 20TH AVE
8230 R1-18 8308
Z-171-99
Z-96-97 1830
8240 8312
8250 1819 1815 1811 1807 1803 1729 1725
CENTRAL AVE
48TH ST
40TH ST
32ND ST
7TH AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
Feet 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
I-10
300 150 0 300 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
BASELINE RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 DOBBINS RD
Z-47-17
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Richard Jellies, The Lead Group FROM:
S-1 (8.41 a.c.)
R1-10 (1.49 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
08/11/2017
Z-47-17 REVISION DATES: R1-18 (1.25 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
11.15 Acres QS 01-24 D-7 TO: R1-10 (11.15 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1, R1-10, R1-18 8, 5, 2 N/A, 6, 3
R1-10 39 50
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
R:\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2017\Z-47-17.mxd
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
EXHIBIT J
Page 297
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Date of VPC Meeting August 9, 2022
Planning Hearing Officer August 17, 2022
Hearing Date
Request 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance with the site plan date stamped July 28,
2) Review of conceptual elevations by the Planning
Hearing Officer per Stipulation 4
Location 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and
Latona Lane
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 7-4; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Busching, Montoya,
Shepard, Marchuk and Daniels in favor. Coleman,
Holmerud, Muhammad Roque, and Viera opposed.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
8 members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Dean Chiarelli, Mike Josic, Cheverra Trillo, Gina Johnson, Nick Torrez, Ravi Sharma
donated time to Jewel Clark.
Fatima Muhammad Roque asked what community outdoor areas and spaces were
being provided for the community. Chuck Kennedy said that large retention basins,
limited access to 20th Avenue, shade structures, picnic tables, and possible barbecue
areas may be provided.
Dr. George Brooks asked how the site is capturing new resources to maximize
efficiency, such as higher SEER rated units, Energy Star ratings, and electric vehicle
outlets. Mr. Kennedy mentioned they are providing water efficient fixtures, drought
tolerant planting, and landscaping that provides shade.
Chair Tamala Daniels stated a HERS rating of 55 or lower is a good energy efficient
number. Dr. Brooks asked what the HERS rating was for the proposed homes. Mr.
Kennedy answered they didn’t have one at this stage
Dr. Brooks asked if the applicant read the South Phoenix Food Plan. Chuck Kennedy
stated they did not.
Page 298
Gene Holmerud asked if the developer is providing EV vehicle outlets in the homes.
Mr. Valencia mentioned that things like EV outlets could be options the developer can
provide but the city would not be able to enforce them. Gene Holmerud mentioned that
would be one way to make incremental change.
Dr. Viera asked if more energy efficient items could be requested by the committee
even if the city cannot enforce them instead of waiting five or more years for things to be
required. Mr. Valencia answered that the committee can make any recommendation
they’d like but advised to make enforceable stipulations to avoid being set up for
disappointment. Gene Holmerud asked for examples of what the committee could
stipulate. Mr. Valencia stated open space, landscaping, tree caliper size, and tree
spacing to name a few.
Kevin Zenk wanted to clarify that he never received a copy of the Food Action Plan to
review. Mr. Valencia said he would forward the Food Action plan to the applicant. Dr.
Viera asked that the Climate Action Plan be forwarded too.
Chair Daniels asked if the streets would be tree lined. Kevin Zenk said they would be.
Chair Daniels asked for the original site plan to be showed and why the emergency
access to 20th was removed from the new site plan. Kevin Zenk stated there was
conversation with the Fire department and they said the cul-de-sac turnaround radius
met fire requirements. This would also allow for more retention and open space area.
Chair Daniels asked staff if the Street Transportation Department was okay with only
one access point. Mr. Valencia answered that a technical appeal would be required
because the streets are not connecting. Mr. Valencia added that Fire is okay with the
cul-de-sac radius because the cul-de-sac radius is designed with a fire truck being able
to turn around in mind. Connecting the street and gating it off would not count as
connectivity but connecting it does result in less open space. Mr. Valencia also showed
an aerial to point out that 20th avenue does not connect any further north and how 19th
avenue has the bigger build out and is more connected.
Chair Daniels asked if the cul-de-sac triggers the technical appeal. Mr. Valencia
answered that it triggers two technical appeals. One for having an overlength distance
to the cul-de-sac from 19th Avenue and one for not connecting to 20th Avenue. Chair
Daniels asked if Streets was okay with that. Mr. Valencia replied that he did not
receive any comments from Streets because this is a PHO case and street
correspondence more than likely was sent to the Hearing Officer.
Chair Daniels asked if the developer had met with the PHO already. Mr. Valencia said
that has not happened yet because the public hearing for PHO is after the Village.
Recommendations made at the Village will be forwarded to the PHO for their analysis.
Gene Holmerud asked if a light duty fence for fire to smash through could be
constructed. Mr. Valencia said the original proposal had an emergency gate and fire
Page 299
could gain access through what’s called a Knox box. Crashing through a fence would
possibly be a last resort.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Erin Hegedus was concerned that there are no real heat mitigations proposed. Ms.
Hegedus talked about an open SRP irrigation canal across on 19th Avenue. There are
numerous crashes that happen on 19th Avenue and Southern because it is a two-lane
street that goes into a swerve. She expressed that there is a lack of infrastructure in the
area to support the density that keeps coming in the area and that here are many
reports of crashes in the irrigation ditch across from the site. Ms. Hegedus also
expressed concerns with the lack of tree canopy, landscape enhancements, and
sidewalk details not being shown on the plans.
Jewel Clark stated that the original development had three houses per acre and that
anything with higher density is not keeping in character with the area. Mrs. Clark asked
for the city to keep the density to the original approval and asked for greater street
setbacks from the S-1 homes across the street. Mrs. Clark stated dropping the density
would allow for the greater setbacks to be achieved and for an even greater open space
percentage which is more consistent with the surrounding area. Mrs. Clark also brought
up how all the existing and recently approved projects in the area are single-story in
height and was not sure why the applicant is proposing two-story homes without
showing any of those elevations. Mrs. Clark stated the Rio Montaña Area Plan calls for
limited two-story homes, yet the applicant has given no indication of how many they
intend to provide. Mrs. Clark said there is enough lacking to either continue or deny the
request, an inconsistency with the character of the Rio Montaña Area Plan, and lack of
commitment to heat mitigation from the applicant’s proposal. Mrs. Clark mentioned their
neighborhood area feels cooler because of the amount of open space there is, and as a
strong supporter of sustainability she would like to see more requirements being placed
on these final products since the site was only recently acquired in April there should be
more time to review and improve the proposal. Mrs. Clark commented on the elevations
and how the Rio Montaña Area Plan not only mentions garages be recessed 10-feet
back from the front, but also calls for alley and side loaded garages. Mrs. Clark finished
her remarks summarizing that the key issues are density, open space, setbacks, and
single-story if possible.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Kevin Zenk said that they submitted a landscape plan showing tree lined streets as well
as the necessary vegetation in the landscape strips, but that it was denied, and they
were told it was not needed. As for density and open space they are more than double
what is required in R1-10 PRD. Density of 3.5 du/ac is within what is allowed in R1-10
PRD zoning and the Rio Montaña Area Plan. Mr. Zenk said they are willing to be
stipulated to Energy Star conformance and to work with the utility and development
teams to ensure theses homes are sustainable and energy efficient.
Page 300
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Marcia Busching appreciated all the public and committee comments including
irrigation, open space, and tree lined streets. She reminded the committee that
unfortunately the request being presented is to provide comments for a modification to a
previously approved site plan and as a result she is in favor of the item.
Kay Shepard agreed with Marcia Bushing and stated that she was ready to make a
motion.
MOTION:
Kay Shepard motioned to approve case PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 as filed. Marcia
Busching seconded the motion to approve.
VOTE:
7-4, motion passed; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Busching, Montoya, Shepard, Marchuk,
and Daniels in favor. Coleman, Holmerud, Muhammad Roque, and Viera opposed. Mr.
Holmerud stated with the site being purchased in April it seemed rushed together.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
1) Note that this item is related to Item #8 (Review and Comment Item - regarding
Rezoning Case No. PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8) heard on this same agenda. See
documents regarding that item and case file for further discussion on these
items.
Page 301
EXHIBIT K
Page 302
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
REVIEW AND COMMENT
PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Date of VPC Meeting August 9, 2022
Location 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and
Latona Lane
VPC Recommendation Stipulation 3 met and two recommendations provided to
staff regarding staggered lots and front porches
VPC Vote 11-0; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Busching, Coleman,
Holmerud, Montoya, Muhammad Roque, Shepard, Viera,
Marchuk, and Daniels in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Mr. Valencia mentioned Stipulations 3 and 4 of the underlying case created
redundancy. Stipulation 3 for review and comment would have less weight than
providing PHO comments for their review as part of Stipulation 4. Mr. Valencia asked
the committee if they would like to provide elevation comments to the PHO they should
do so as part of this discussion, unless they would rather have the applicant come back
to them prior to final site plan approval.
Chair Daniels stated that we don’t really have elevations.
Mr. Valencia said exactly and that is why the committee could be specific as to what
they would like to achieve from the elevations such as height, or side loaded garages.
Marcia Bushing asked for clarification on the elevations on pages 72 and 73 of the
packet and if there are only four elevations being proposed.
Kevin Zenk answered that those are the preferred conceptual elevations.
Mr. Valencia shared two additional elevations for a single-story home that were emailed
by the applicant after the packet had been sent out and asked the applicant if they had
any two-story homes proposed. Chuck Kennedy answered that the majority would be
single-story, but they wanted to allow some flexibility to be able to build two-story in
case a buyer wanted additional floor area.
Mr. Valencia reminded the committee that if they wanted to restrict the heights or
certain lots to be a certain height this would be the time to provide that information.
Page 303
Chair Daniels said she did not have an issue with height as it creates diversity, but she
did want to go over side loaded garages and characteristics for the Rio Montaña area
plan while going over the elevations.
Mr. Valencia presented the elevations while bringing out that some key areas include
reduction of garage dominance which could be done by stepping back the garage which
all the elevations seem to indicate. Mr. Valencia stated that side loaded garages are
closer to the front property line but break up garage dominance because it has windows
and acts like a faux front. Mr. Valencia stated that none of the elevations indicate side
loaded garages so of the committee wants that they will have to give some specifics
such as percentage of elevations to provide that option. Mr. Valencia next mentioned
front porches are also characteristic of the Rio Montaña Area Plan and that all the
proposed elevations do not indicate porches or their dimensions. All elevations indicate
pitched roofs which Mr. Valencia said was another Rio Montaña Area Plan character
trait. As well as the variety of materials being proposed.
Chair Daniels asked how much percentage could be asked for on porches. Mr.
Valencia cited earlier cases where the committee stipulated 75 percent of the
elevations to have porches.
Chair Daniels stated she would like to see front porches on the elevations and asked if
side loaded garages create a staggering effect. Mr. Valencia replied that a staggering
effect is created by side loaded garages because the building projects forward on some
lots while others are further back.
Chair Daniels asked for side loaded garages and for porches on 75 percent of the
elevations since the applicant is also seeking the technical appeals creating a win-win
situation.
Kevin Zenk mentioned that side loaded garages would be difficult to achieve on lots of
this width because of turning radius requirements. Mr. Zenk added that they are
accepting of the front porch requirements as it does create more massing and reduces
the prominence of the garage. Chair Daniels replied that she has seen smaller lots
with side loaded garages.
Gene Holmerud asked if the elevations are coming back for them to review. Mr.
Valencia stated if the committee wants the applicant to come back with elevations as
Stipulation 3 of the underlying case, then the comments they provide are under no
guarantee of being implemented during site review. If the committee opts to provide
comments to the PHO, then the PHO can use those comments as part of their review.
Although there is no guarantee that the PHO will enact the committees’ comments, the
committees’ comments hold more weight in that forum. Gene Holmerud stated that if a
motion is made then it should be to provide comments to the PHO.
MOTION 1
Page 304
Mr. Valencia asked if the motion the committee wanted was to consider Stipulation 3
met and to provide elevation comments to staff to include requiring 25 percent of the
elevations to accommodate side loaded garages and 75 percent of the elevations to
provide front porches, with porches to be designed consistent with recommendations in
the Rio Montaña Area Plan, with a minimum 6-foot depth and a minimum 60 square-feet
in area.
Gene Holmerud agreed and made that motion. No second was provided for this
motion. The motion failed.
MOTION 2
Kay Shepard stated that side loaded garages would not look appealing due to the
amount of concrete that would be required for the driveway and maneuvering area on
lots of this width. Chair Daniels agreed with Kay Shepard and asked if they could still
stagger the houses. Mr. Valencia answered that the lots are about 140 feet in depth
and that there is that opportunity to create undulation. Kay Shepard stated that she
liked the staggered idea.
Ms. Shepard made a motion to consider Stipulation 3 of PHO-2-22-Z-47-17-8 met and
to provide two recommendations to staff:
1) The lots in the subdivision shall be staggered.
2) 75 percent of the elevations shall provide covered porches. Porches shall be
consistent with recommendations in the Rio Montaña Area plan and provide a
minimum of six-foot depth and a minimum sixty square feet in area.
Marcia Busching seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-0; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Busching, Coleman, Holmerud, Montoya, Muhammad
Roque, Shepard, Viera, Marchuk, and Daniels in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
1) Note that this item was advertised and intended to be heard as a ‘Review and
Comment’ item and therefore, no motion and vote was required. However, there
is no impact from the VPC having taken a motion and vote and the
recommendations will be provided to staff regardless.
2) Note that this item is related to Item #7 (Rezoning Case No. PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-
8) heard on this same agenda. See documents regarding that item and case file
for further discussion on these items.
Page 305
3) The VPC did not provide specific dimensions for the staggering of front yard
setback lines. However, an example of this staggering is depicted in Figures 71
and 72 on page 39 (42 in PDF) of the Rio Montaña Area Plan and is also
mentioned as an option in the Single-Family Design Review Checklist (SFDR).
4) The Rio Montaña Area Plan, page 22 (25 in PDF), mentions “providing deep
overhangs and covered porches on residential buildings”. Although no specific
dimensions are given, note that the nearby Baseline Area Overlay District
(BAOD) provides recommended dimensions in Section 651.E.3.b.(4).
Page 306
EXHIBIT L
Page 307
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Bradley Wylam, Planner I, Assisting
August 17, 2022
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Location: Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th
Avenue and Latona Lane
Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 5.12
Request: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance with the site plan date stamped July 28,
2017.
2) Review of conceptual elevations by the Planning Hearing
Officer per Stipulation 4.
Applicant: Terrascape Consulting LLC
Owner: Bella Rosa Partners LLC
Representative: Terrascape Consulting LLC
ACTIONS:
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with modifications and additional stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The South Mountain
Village Planning Committee heard this request on August 9, 2022 and
recommended approval by a vote of 7-4.
DISCUSSION:
Kevin Zenk, representative with Terrascape Consulting, reviewed the subject site
and surrounding uses. He provided an overview of the original rezoning case and
noted that both parcels in the original rezoning case area have changed
ownership and will be developed separately. He reviewed the proposed
conceptual site plan, which depicts an 18-unit single-family subdivision at
approximately 3.51 dwelling units per gross acre. He stated that a single street
with a cul-de-sac is proposed and that approximately 9% of the gross area would
be reserved as common open space. He stated that the lot widths at
approximately 58 feet are similar to the lot sizes on the stipulated site plan. He
provided an overview of the proposed elevations and stated that the elevations
are consistent with design guidelines from the Rio Montaña Area Plan, including
Page 308
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 2
staggered lots with various front setbacks and a variety of building materials. He
noted that only single-story elevations were submitted but noted that he hopes to
include a two-story elevations in the final development of the subdivision. He
noted that the Rio Montaña Area Plan states that houses with varying heights are
encouraged to create housing diversity. He stated that landscaping was
discussed at the South Mountain Village Planning Committee (VPC) and
displayed a conceptual landscape plan that depicts landscaping along streets.
Michael Josic, adjacent property owner to the west speaking in opposition,
expressed concerns regarding privacy and wished to eliminate all two-story
homes from the western side of the subdivision. He specified that Lots 8, 9, 10,
and 11 should be limited to single-story development only.
Jewel Clark, adjacent property owner to the west speaking in opposition, stated
that she is representing multiple property owners in the surrounding area,
including Miguel Rubio and Ravinder Sharma, who also own property adjacent to
the subject site. She stated that the stipulated site plan depicts 3.03 dwelling
units per gross acre, compared to the 3.51 dwelling units per gross acre currently
proposed, and noted that the density would be greater than that approved in two
recent rezoning cases at the southeast and southwest corners of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain, approximately 600 feet south of the subject site. She stated
that the proposed density is out of character with the surrounding community,
which consists of large lot residences that are zoned S-1. She stated that the
development should be limited to approximately 3 dwelling units per acre,
consistent with the stipulated site plan. She stated that the Rio Montaña Area
Plan states that the area is to be preserved with open space and create an area
that feels rural. She noted that active agriculture is present in the surrounding
area. She stated that by reducing the number of units, increased open space and
perimeter setbacks could be introduced that may ease neighbors’ concerns. She
stated that she would like the development to consist of single-story units only,
which would match the character of the area. She noted that there are no two-
story residences near the property and that the two subdivisions recently
approved to the south are limited to one story. She stated that the Rio Montaña
Area Plan notes that two-story development should be limited. She reiterated that
the density of 3.51 dwelling units per gross acre significantly deviates from the
density on the stipulated site plan and noted that she hoped the site would be
limited to single-story development. She stated that the lack of two-story
elevations in the applicant’s submittals is concerning.
Mr. Zenk stated that the developer is willing to stipulate that Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11
are to be limited to single-story development, as recommended by Mr. Josic. He
stated that the Rio Montaña Area Plan notes that a diversity of building heights is
recommended. He stated that the two-story residences are proposed to be
staggered in development and not located directly adjacent to other two-story
Page 309
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 3
units. He stated that the development would be in conformance with the density
and height permitted by the R1-10 zoning district.
Adam Stranieri, Planning Hearing Officer, stated that 12 letters in opposition
were received prior to the hearing and noted that Ms. Clark’s letter comprised the
text of 11 of those letters. He stated that the concerns noted in the
correspondence include the increased density, building height, and reduction in
open space. He provided an overview of the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee (VPC) recommendation, which recommended approval by a vote of
7-4. He noted that the VPC made two recommendations during a “review and
comment” item regarding architectural elevations per Stipulation 3. He noted that
they recommended adding a stipulation that front setbacks be staggered and
requiring front porches. He noted that the VPC recommendations were
addressed in Mr. Zenk’s presentation. He stated that Stipulations 3 and 4 are
redundant and that he would consider the VPC’s recommendations for
Stipulation 3 made in conjunction with the recommendation on the PHO item. He
stated none of the application materials provided by the applicant discuss or
propose two-story buildings and that the conceptual elevations did not include
any two-story home designs. He stated that he is not comfortable recommending
any stipulation that infers that two-story development would be permitted due to
the lack of two-story elevations. He also stated that the intent of Stipulation 4 was
to address the lack of elevations in the original rezoning case and require the
applicant to provide elevations, when available, through a public hearing process.
He stated that he does not feel the stipulation has been complied with if the
applicant did not provide any two-story elevations and now wants approval for
such homes. He stated that he would be comfortable recommending a
continuance to allow the applicant to provide elevations for the two-story homes
they have discussed, or alternately he would be comfortable providing a
recommendation based solely on the single-story elevations provided. He noted
that a general conformance stipulation to solely single-story elevations would not
allow the applicant to construct two-story homes without a subsequent PHO case
to modify that stipulation to include those designs. He discussed the use of
‘general conformance’ as a term in zoning stipulations. Mr. Zenk stated that he
would prefer to move forward with a recommendation based on the conceptual
building elevations provided.
Mr. Stranieri provided an overview of the proposed conceptual site plan and
stated that the density depicted consists of approximately two more units than
what would be permitted using the density shown on the stipulated site plan. He
stated that the change is modest and remains below the maximum permitted
density in the R1-10 zoning district. He stated that approximately 9% open space
is depicted on the proposed conceptual site plan, which is approximately twice
the minimum open space required by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that a
technical appeal may be required regarding the termination of the cul-de-sac on
the west portion of the site. Scott Lucas, representative with Terrascape
Page 310
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 4
Consulting, stated that the technical appeal has not been applied for, but would
be following the results of the PHO process.
Mr. Stranieri recommended approval of the request to modify Stipulation 1 with a
modification to provide more standard language. He stated that the proposed
conceptual elevations depict a variety of building materials, multiple building
colors, variation in roof design, and multiple architectural features such as wood
posts, gable ornamentation, varied window size, and decorative garage panels.
He stated that the staggered front setbacks, which was recommended by the
South Mountain VPC and recommended in the Rio Montaña Area Plan is
recommended for approval as a new sub-stipulation of Stipulation 1. He stated
that the stipulation would state that the front setback is to be staggered a
minimum of 4 feet compared to adjacent lots. He stated that the South Mountain
VPC recommendation requiring front porches is recommended for approval. He
stated that this stipulation would follow standard language drawn from the
Baseline Area Overlay District. He recommended that Stipulation 4 regarding the
review and approval of conceptual elevations be replaced with a standard
language general conformance stipulation with the elevations date stamped
August 17, 2022. He requested that staff combine the multiple elevations
submitted throughout the hearing process under a single cover and date stamp
for simplicity. He stated that the Street Transportation Department
recommended an additional stipulation regarding dedications, detached
sidewalks, and landscaping along 19th Avenue.
Mr. Josic asked a question regarding an open irrigation canal on the west side of
19th Avenue. Mr. Lucas stated that the drainage would be updated through street
improvements along the subject site’s frontage. Mr. Stranieri noted that the
proposed conceptual site plan approved by the PHO would not have an impact
on any existing Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance technical requirements that may
be implemented as the developer continues through the plan review process.
FINDINGS:
1) The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard two agenda items
regarding this case at their August 9, 2022 meeting. The first (Agenda
Item #7) was the PHO request itself. The second (Agenda Item #8) was
for review and comment on architectural elevations per the requirements
of Stipulation 3. Note that Stipulation 3 is redundant of, and less
restrictive than, the requirement for PHO review of conceptual elevations
required by Stipulation 4. However, during the review and comment item,
the VPC made two recommendations regarding the provision of staggered
front setbacks and front porches. These recommendations are addressed
in these findings along with the consideration paid to the VPC’s discussion
during the PHO request itself.
Page 311
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 5
2) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with
the site plan is recommended for approval with modifications to provide
more standard conformance language and to add a new sub-stipulation
requiring staggered front setbacks.
The subject property includes only the southern 5.12 gross acres of the
11.15 gross acres rezoned in the original case. The stipulated site plan
depicted a 32-unit single-family subdivision at approximately 3.03 dwelling
units per gross acre and approximately 13.9% open space. Units were
arranged around four cul-de-sacs oriented north/south, with most of the
open space along the west property line. The street running east/west
through the site terminated in an emergency gate along the west property
line.
The proposed conceptual site plan depicts an 18-unit single-family
subdivision at approximately 3.51 dwelling units per gross acre, with
approximately 9% open space. Units are arranged along a street running
east/west through the site. The street terminates in a cul-de-sac along the
west property line. Most of the open space is along the west property line.
The proposal is substantially similar to the stipulated site plan, with the
caveat that it is designed with less than half of the original area. The
density remains below, and the open space above, Ordinance standards.
The proposal is compatible with existing development in the surrounding
area.
A new sub-stipulation is recommended requiring staggered front setbacks.
This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee. It is also consistent with design
recommendations in the Rio Montaña Area Plan (Page 39, Figure 71).
3) The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for review and approval per
the requirements of Stipulation 4. The stipulation has been complied with
and is recommended to be deleted and replaced with a standard language
stipulation for general conformance to the elevations provided. Stipulation
4 states that the elevations submitted should be consistent with
recommendations in the Rio Montaña Area Plan. The elevations depict a
variety of building materials (stone façade, composite siding, wood
elements, brick veneer), multiple building colors, variation in roof design,
and multiple architectural features (wood posts, gable ornamentation,
varied window sizes, decorative garage panels). This diversity is
consistent with the Rio Montaña Area Plan and many of the design
choices are compatible with the rural and agricultural character described
in the plan.
Page 312
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 6
4) An additional stipulation is recommended to require front porches to be
provided per the requirements of the Baseline Area Overlay District
(651.E.3.b.(4)). This recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation of the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. It is
also consistent with the Rio Montaña Area Plan (Page 22; Page 23; Page
44, Figures 97 and 100) and the intent of Stipulation 4.
5) The Street Transportation Department recommends one additional
stipulation addressing required dedications, detached sidewalks, and
landscaping along 19th Avenue. This stipulation is recommended for
inclusion.
19th Avenue is identified on the City Council Approved Street
Classification Map as a D-Section Arterial roadway. This cross section
requires a total right-of-way dedication of 50-feet where the last 10-feet
may consider a 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement. Within the
ROW/sidewalk easement, an 11-foot-wide landscape strip located
between back of curb and sidewalk is required to create a separated
detached sidewalk and allow planting space for trees to mature and to
adequately shade the sidewalk.
While Stipulation 2 (not a part of this request) addresses detached
sidewalks, requiring a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip between back
of curb and sidewalk, this does not override the City Council approved
Street Classification Map. While all other detached sidewalks within the
development may allow the 5-foot-wide landscape strip, 19th Avenue
cannot and shall comply with the recommended stipulation as described.
6) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to
the Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an
application requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to
require the applicant to record this form and deliver it to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.
STIPULATIONS:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped JUNE 30, 2022 July 28, 2017, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:
A. THE SITE PLAN SHALL DEPICT STAGGERED FRONT
SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS, SUCH THAT
ANY TWO ADJACENT LOTS SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM
VARIATION IN FRONT SETBACK OF 4 FEET.
Page 313
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 7
2. All sidewalks shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped
strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include a
minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on
center or equivalent groupings staggered along both sides of the
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained
by the HOA.
3. Architectural elevations shall be presented to the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to final site plan
approval.
4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency
with the Rio Montaña Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through
the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary
site plan approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes
only. Specific development standards and requirements may be
determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and
Development Department.
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED AUGUST 17, 2022, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
5. COVERED PORCHES A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET IN AREA
AT A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE
FRONT YARD OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE HOMES IN A
SUBDIVISION. NO PORCH SHALL TERMINATE WITHIN THE PLANE
OF A DOOR OR WINDOW.
6. The perimeter wall adjacent to 19th Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot
5. offsets at a minimum spacing of every 50 feet and material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative
element, such as tile, glass insets, or stamped designs, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. Fence and wall materials adjacent to common areas and open space as
6. depicted on the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017 shall consist of
wrought iron, split rail, corral fencing, or a combination of 3 feet of solid
masonry topped by open wrought iron or a similar material, or a
combination of the aforementioned fence types and open farm fencing,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 314
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 8
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE MINIMUM 50-FEET OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 19TH AVENUE.
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE
DETACHED SIDEWALK AND MINIMUM 11-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE
STRIP LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND SIDEWALK,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. LANDSCAPE STRIP PLANTING
REQUIREMENTS TO BE APPROVED BY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT.
9. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way totaling 25 feet for the east half
7. of 20th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
8. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
9. construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing
activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City
Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
12. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence,
10. and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX) 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.
13. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS
FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO
BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Page 315
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022
Application PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8
Page 9
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time
through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a
disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or
services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. To request a reasonable
accommodation, please contact Les Scott at leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or 602-376-3981
or TTY: 7-1-1.
Page 316
ATTACHMENT C
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Location: Approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and
Latona Lane
Request: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with
the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017.
2) Review of conceptual elevations by the Planning Hearing Officer
per Stipulation 4.
Acreage: 5.12
Applicant: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
Owner: Bella Rosa Partners, LLC
Representative: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
ACTIONS:
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 8/9/2022 Approval. Vote: 7-4.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval with modifications and additional stipulations.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer
recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8, per
the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
Maker: Busching
Second: Vice-Chair Mangum
Vote: 7-2 (Gorraiz and Perez)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard two agenda items regarding
this case at their August 9, 2022 meeting. The first (Agenda Item #7) was the PHO
request itself. The second (Agenda Item #8) was for review and comment on
architectural elevations per the requirements of Stipulation 3. Note that Stipulation 3 is
redundant of, and less restrictive than, the requirement for PHO review of conceptual
elevations required by Stipulation 4. However, during the review and comment item,
the VPC made two recommendations regarding the provision of staggered front
setbacks and front porches. These recommendations are addressed in these findings
Page 317
along with the consideration paid to the VPC’s discussion during the PHO request
itself.
2. The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan is
recommended for approval with modifications to provide more standard conformance
language and to add a new sub-stipulation requiring staggered front setbacks.
The subject property includes only the southern 5.12 gross acres of the 11.15 gross
acres rezoned in the original case. The stipulated site plan depicted a 32-unit single-
family subdivision at approximately 3.03 dwelling units per gross acre and
approximately 13.9% open space. Units were arranged around four cul-de-sacs
oriented north/south, with most of the open space along the west property line. The
street running east/west through the site terminated in an emergency gate along the
west property line.
The proposed conceptual site plan depicts an 18-unit single-family subdivision at
approximately 3.51 dwelling units per gross acre, with approximately 9% open space.
Units are arranged along a street running east/west through the site. The street
terminates in a cul-de-sac along the west property line. Most of the open space is
along the west property line. The proposal is substantially similar to the stipulated site
plan, with the caveat that it is designed with less than half of the original area. The
density remains below, and the open space above, Ordinance standards. The proposal
is compatible with existing development in the surrounding area.
A new sub-stipulation is recommended requiring staggered front setbacks. This
recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee. It is also consistent with design recommendations in the Rio
Montaña Area Plan (Page 39, Figure 71).
3. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for review and approval per the
requirements of Stipulation 4. The stipulation has been complied with and is
recommended to be deleted and replaced with a standard language stipulation for
general conformance to the elevations provided. Stipulation 4 states that the elevations
submitted should be consistent with recommendations in the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
The elevations depict a variety of building materials (stone façade, composite siding,
wood elements, brick veneer), multiple building colors, variation in roof design, and
multiple architectural features (wood posts, gable ornamentation, varied window sizes,
decorative garage panels). This diversity is consistent with the Rio Montaña Area Plan
and many of the design choices are compatible with the rural and agricultural character
described in the plan.
4. An additional stipulation is recommended to require front porches to be provided per
the requirements of the Baseline Area Overlay District (651.E.3.b.(4)). This
recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee. It is also consistent with the Rio Montaña Area Plan (Page 22;
Page 23; Page 44, Figures 97 and 100) and the intent of Stipulation 4.
5. The Street Transportation Department recommends one additional stipulation
addressing required dedications, detached sidewalks, and landscaping along 19th
Avenue. This stipulation is recommended for inclusion.
19th Avenue is identified on the City Council Approved Street Classification Map as a
D-Section Arterial roadway. This cross section requires a total right-of-way dedication
of 50-feet where the last 10-feet may consider a 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement.
Page 318
Within the ROW/sidewalk easement, an 11-foot-wide landscape strip located between
back of curb and sidewalk is required to create a separated detached sidewalk and
allow planting space for trees to mature and to adequately shade the sidewalk.
While Stipulation 2 (not a part of this request) addresses detached sidewalks, requiring
a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip between back of curb and sidewalk, this does
not override the City Council approved Street Classification Map. While all other
detached sidewalks within the development may allow the 5-foot-wide landscape strip,
19th Avenue cannot and shall comply with the recommended stipulation as described.
6. The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the Planning
Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application requirement. An
additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to record this form and
deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
JUNE 30, 2022 July 28, 2017, as modified by the following stipulations and approved
by the Planning and Development Department, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING:
A. THE SITE PLAN SHALL DEPICT STAGGERED FRONT SETBACKS FOR
COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS, SUCH THAT ANY TWO ADJACENT LOTS
SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM VARIATION IN FRONT SETBACK OF 4 FEET.
2. All sidewalks shall be detached with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include a minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings staggered
along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained by
the HOA.
3. Architectural elevations shall be presented to the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee for review and comment prior to final site plan approval.
4. Conceptual elevations shall be reviewed and approved for consistency with the Rio
Montaña Area Plan by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process
for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning
and Development Department.
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED AUGUST 17, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
5. COVERED PORCHES A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET IN AREA AT A DEPTH
OF AT LEAST SIX FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE FRONT YARD OF FIFTY
PERCENT OF THE HOMES IN A SUBDIVISION. NO PORCH SHALL TERMINATE
WITHIN THE PLANE OF A DOOR OR WINDOW.
6. The perimeter wall adjacent to 19th Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets at a
5. minimum spacing of every 50 feet and material and textural differences, such as
Page 319
stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile, glass insets, or
stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Fence and wall materials adjacent to common areas and open space as depicted on
6. the site plan date stamped July 28, 2017 shall consist of wrought iron, split rail, corral
fencing, or a combination of 3 feet of solid masonry topped by open wrought iron or a
similar material, or a combination of the aforementioned fence types and open farm
fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE MINIMUM 50-FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 19TH AVENUE. IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE A
MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK AND MINIMUM 11-FOOT-WIDE
LANDSCAPE STRIP LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND SIDEWALK,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT. LANDSCAPE STRIP PLANTING REQUIREMENTS TO BE
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
9. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way totaling 25 feet for the east half of 20th
7. Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
8. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
9. developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
10. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) 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.
13. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Les Scott at 602-261-8980, leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 320
ATTACHMENT D
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/ PHO-2-22—Z-47-17-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Approximately 130 feet opposition x applicant
north of the northwest
corner of 19th Avenue
and Latona Lane
APPEALED FROM: PC 2020 W. South Mountain Avenue
October 6, 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85014
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC H. Jewel Clark
HEARING November 2, 2022 480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Increased density is incompatible with neighborhood per Rio Montana Plan guidelines,
community efforts, and precedent with previously approved developments in area.
Request reduction to 3 houses/acre per original site plan to allow for greater setbacks
from S-1 neighbors plus stipulation or guaranteed confirmation of all single story
homes.
RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 10/11/2022
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
Diana Hernandez Applicant
David Urbinato
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 321
Page 322
Attachment E
Bradley A Wylam
From: Gina Baker
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 7:25 AM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Cases Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Hello,
Jewel Clark authored the below on our behalf. We whole-heartedly request alignment to the Rio Montana Plan and
agree with all requests below. Please consider the adverse impact to our community in your decision making.
My name is Gina Johnson and my husband and I own the property at 1816 W Magdalena Lane, which is near the
proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. Based on the original plans and the currently proposed
ones, I respectfully request consideration and amendment of several elements of this plan to better align with the
neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the
area nor is it in keeping with the originally approved plan for density. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan
in key elements based on the currently submitted documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Page 323
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more
compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were
approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved
applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and
allow Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details
appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus any
additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper trees
as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story
+30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-
1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are
on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of open space to maintain rural character.
One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is
completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger
context in which it is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback
lines, no privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built
throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines
outlined in the general and village development plans. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adam and Gina Johnson
1816 W Magdalena Ln.
Phx, AZ 85041
602-332-5297
Sent from my iPhone
Page 324
Bradley A Wylam
From: DJC
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Elias Valencia; ppd.pho@phoenix.gov; Bradley A Wylam; ppd.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/ 2-22--Z-47-17-8
Attachments: Chiarelli_Bella_Rosa_ August 3-2022.pdf
Re: Proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8.
My name is Dean Chiarelli; a homeowner & resident in South Mountain for the last 11 years. I am in 100% agreement with the letter
submitted by Jewel Clark [2020 W. South Mountain Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041]. I respectfully request consideration and amendment
of this plan to better align with the neighborhood. Attached is my signed letter.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents established in the area, nor is it in keeping with the
initially approved plan for density. Based on the currently submitted documents, it is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan
design elements. The last two approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, situated at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa), have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should adhere to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more compatible w ith
our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were approved. The proposed
development should be updated in alignment with currently approved applications regarding density, open space, house height, and
heat mitigation efforts.
Page 325
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and allow Bella
Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application, but the site details appear to
indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements include front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks and any
additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated—minimum 50% 3" caliper trees.
Energy Star and other energy-efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The setback from 20th Ave. is appreciated. It should not be diminished but it does not lessen the fact that 2-story +30' foot high
houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-1 homes with single
stories. All the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio
Montana Plan calls for a feeling of open space to maintain rural character. One way to accomplish this is to have deep setbacks from
major streets. The requirement of this feature for Bella Rosa is entirely appropriate in keeping with what all other developers along
19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger context in which
it is located.
Limiting the use of two-story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on the east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback lines, no
privacy fencing
The common objective for single-family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built throughout the
Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep its promise to residents by holding developers to the guidelines outlined in the general
and village development plans. Thank you.
Dean Chiarelli, MA, Registered Dietitian, Registered Environmental Health Specialist
912 E. La Mirada Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Page 326
Bradley A Wylam
From: PDD Planning Commission
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Bradley A Wylam
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: October 6: Opposition to PHO-2-22-Z-47-17-8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Brad, Please put in correspondence. Thx Vikki
From: DJC
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 6:18 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: October 6: Opposition to PHO-2-22-Z-47-17-8
To Phoenix Planning & Development Commission,
I oppose density above 3 houses per acre in our area and do not support the application PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 at its
current density of 3.5 houses per acre. Our community has worked very hard to maintain our rural character as outlined
by the Rio Montana plan and as consistent with current land use. I support developers who want to create developments
compatible with existing neighbors and other land use in our area. This application does not meet that standard and if
approved as-is, I do not want it to be considered as a precedent for future applications.
Dean Chiarelli, MA, Registered Dietitian, Registered Environmental Health Specialist
912 East La Mirada Drive
Phoenix AZ 85042
Page 327
Bradley A Wylam
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Comments for case Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. SMVPC agenda items 7, 8. PHO agenda
item 5
Hello,
My name is Jewel Clark and my husband and I own the property at 2020 W. South Moutain Ave, which is across 20th
Ave. from the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. Based on the original plans and the
currently proposed ones, I respectfully request consideration and amendment of several elements of this plan to better
align with the neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the
area nor is it in keeping with the originally approved plan for density. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan
in key elements based on the currently submitted documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Page 328
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more
compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were
approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved
applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and
allow Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details
appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus any
additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper trees
as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story
+30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-
1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are
on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of open space to maintain rural character.
One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is
completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger
context in which it is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback
lines, no privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built
throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines
outlined in the general and village development plans. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 329
Bradley A Wylam
From: Elias Valencia
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Bradley A Wylam
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Objection to Z-47-17-8/2-22 and Z-47-18-8
-----Original Message-----
From: Dorothy Hallock
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Elias Valencia
Subject: Objection to Z-47-17-8/2-22 and Z-47-18-8
The proposed change in density is unacceptable. Two story houses are totally out of character with adjacent houses on
acre plus lots.
Deny this request please!
Dorothy Hallock
2050 W South Mountain Ave Phoenix 85041
Sent from my iPhone
Page 330
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Elias Valencia
Cc: Sarah Stockham
Subject: FW: Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 6:56:17 AM
For you Elias
Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:38 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Hello,
My name is Erin Hegedus and I reside at 8630 South 19th Avenue, Several hundred yards south of
the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. Based on the original plans and
the currently proposed ones, I would like to request consideration and amendment of several
elements of this plan to better align with the neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
9% open space
2 story+30' height homes
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
13.9% open space
2 story+30' height homes
The new plan is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been
established in the area nor is it in keeping even with the originally approved plan in two key areas.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection
of 19th Ave. and W. South Mountain Ave. (just over 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
Page 331
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Energy Star building
As you can see, the differences are striking and I would like Bella Rosa to be held to the same design
standards that Kimura and Andora have. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for
this development were approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning
what is in keeping with currently approved applications in terms of density, open space, house
height and also in terms of heat mitigation.
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty
of character" and allow Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our
community:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Open space no less than the originally approved plan: ~14%
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but
the site details appear to indicate all 2 story homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25'
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks
plus any additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated.
Minimum 50% 3" caliper trees as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
Page 332
Bradley A Wylam
From: PDD Planning Commission
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Bradley A Wylam
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: PHO-2-22-Z-4-17-8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Brad, Please put in Correspondence file, Vikki
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 2:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: PHO-2-22-Z-4-17-8
I oppose density above 3 houses per acre in our area and do not support the application PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 at its
current density of 3.5 houses per acre.
Our community has worked very hard to maintain our rural character as outlined by the Rio Montana plan and as
consistent with current land use. I support developers who want to create developments compatible with existing
neighbors and other land use in our area. This application does not meet that standard and if approved as-is, I do not
want it to be considered as precedent for future applications.
Further, I am extremely concerned with increased traffic along this corridor. There are currently safety concerns with the
open SRP irrigation to the east of this property along with speed of traffic that flows from the intersection of 19 th Avenue &
Baseline and flows to Dobbins Road. Speed is excessive and the multi lane merging into single lanes is a continual
problem
I would like to see the developers responsible for road improvements that benefit the area, not just their development.
Thank you.
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 333
Bradley A Wylam
From: PDD Planning Commission
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Bradley A Wylam
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Proposed Bella Rosa Development / PHO-2-22-7-47-17-8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Brad, Please add to the correspondence for this case if you have not already. Vikki
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 2:31 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Subject: Proposed Bella Rosa Development / PHO-2-22-7-47-17-8
My name is JoAnne Jensen, 8303 South 17th Drive; Phoenix AZ 85041.
I oppose the proposed density for this development at 3.5 units per acre. South Mountain has worked very hard to
maintain our rural character, as outlined in the Rio Montana Plan. The proposed density is inconsistent with that plan
and is inconsistent with optimal land use for South Mountain. Beyond that, all of the current homes in this area are
single-story – the proposed 60% of two story homes does not match the neighborhood.
We truly support development that is consistent with and compatible with the currently in place surrounding neighbors
and accords with the Rio Montana development plan.
This application does not meet that standard, and if approved as presented, it will provide a density precedent which is
inappropriate for this community.
Thank you very much.
JoAnne Jensen
480-213-6499
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 334
Bradley A Wylam
From: Mike Josic
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 9:24 PM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-
To Whom it may concern,
My name is Mike Josic. My wife and I own the property at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave, which is directly across 20th
Ave. from the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8.
Here are my comments on the proposed changes.
I do not oppose the increased density. I do oppose two story houses along 20th Ave and the south side of the property
bordering the existing homes. People who have lived here for decades deserve a reasonable level of privacy.
Recently approved developments nearby have all maintained a single story limitation.
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design precedents that have been recently established in the area.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimur
All single story
Energy Star building
Andora
All single story
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more
compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were
approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved
applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Please require the following items from this development, to preserve our "certainty of character" and allow Bella
Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details
appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Increased setback from 20th Ave.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: Cool roofs, front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus
any additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper
trees as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods.
The setback from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be reduced but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story
+30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into my and my neighbor's properties. We all have homes
zoned S-1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and
south are on acre+ S-1 properties and have single story homes. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of
Page 335
open space to maintain rural character. One way to do this has been to require single stories and have deep setbacks
from major streets. Requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other
developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger
context in which it is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback
lines, no privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built
throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines
outlined in the general and village development plans.
Thank you.
Mike Josic
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 336
Bradley A Wylam
From: mijosic@fastmail.fm
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 11:50 AM
To: Bradley A Wylam; PDD PHO
Subject: Clarification on opposition for application Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8 agenda item 5 -
PHO hearing
Hello,
My name is Mike Josic. My wife and I own the property at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave, which is directly across 20th
Ave. from the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8.
I originally wrote I did not oppose increased density but I want to clarify that I accept the original density approved for 3
houses per acre. I am OPPOSED to any increase in that density. Please update accordingly. Thank you.
Mike Josic
Page 337
Bradley A Wylam
From: RMonti Main Office
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 8:56 AM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: H. Jewel Clark
Subject: Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Hello,
We are “The Montemayor Family” and we own the property at 2035 W Olney Ave, which is on 19 th Avenue and Olney.
Based on the original plans and the currently proposed ones, I respectfully request consideration and amendment of
several elements of this plan to better align with the neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the
area nor is it in keeping with the originally approved plan for density. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan
in key elements based on the currently submitted documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Energy Star building
Page 338
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more
compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were
approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved
applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and
allow Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details
appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus any
additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper trees
as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story
+30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-
1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are
on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of open space to maintain rural character.
One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is
completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger
context in which it is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback
lines, no privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built
throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines
outlined in the general and village development plans. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Montemayor Family
2035 W Olney Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 339
Bradley A Wylam
From: Miguel Rubio
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 12:16 PM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: opposition letter
Hello,
My name is Stephanie bell and my husband Miguel rubio and I own the property at 8020 south 20 th Ave, which is across
20th Ave. from the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. Based on the original plans and the
currently proposed ones, I respectfully request consideration and amendment of several elements of this plan to better
align with the neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
• 3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
• 2 story+30' height homes
• 9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
• 3.03 houses per acre
• 2 story+30' height homes
• ~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the
area nor is it in keeping with the originally approved plan for density. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan
in key elements based on the currently submitted documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
• 3 houses per acre
• All single story
• 16.5% open space
• minimum lot width of 55'
• Varied lot widths
• Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
• Energy Star building
Andora
• 2.5 houses per acre
• All single story
• 17% open space
• minimum lot widths of 75'
• Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
• Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more
compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were
approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved
applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Page 340
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and allow
Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
• Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
• Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details
appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
• Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
• Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
• Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus any additional
requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper trees as well.
• Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
• Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story
+30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-
1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are
on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of open space to maintain rural character.
One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is
completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
• Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger
context in which it is located.
• Limiting the use of two story buildings
• Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
• Shade for pedestrian comfort
• Trees on east and west sides of buildings
• Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback
lines, no privacy fencing
• The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built
throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines
outlined in the general and village development plans. Thank you.
Sincerely,
STEPHANIE BELL
MIGUEL RUBIO
RB_CONTRACTING1LC@OUTLOOK.COM
RB CONTRACTING LLC
8020 S 2OTH AVE
PHX,AZ 85041
(602) 366 9334
Page 341
Bradley A Wylam
From: PDD Planning Commission
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 11:02 AM
To: Bradley A Wylam
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Opposed to density- PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Brad, Please put in file – hard and digital
From: Miguel Rubio
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 9:33 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposed to density
My name is Miguel rubio I reside at
8020 s 20th Ave south 20th Ave phoenix, Az 85041.
> I oppose density above 3 houses per acre in our area and do not support the application PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8 at its
current density of 3.5 houses per acre. Our community has worked very hard to maintain our rural character as outlined
by the Rio Montana plan and as consistent with current land use. I support developers who want to create developments
compatible with existing neighbors and other land use in our area. This application does not meet that standard and if
approved as-is, I do not want it to be considered as precedent for future applications.
I am donating my time to speak to jewel Clark. Thanks
RB CONTRACTING LLC
8020 S 20TH AVE
PHOENIX, AZ 85041
602 366 9334
Page 342
Bradley A Wylam
From: Ravi Sharma
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:02 PM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Ravi Sharma
Subject: Case Number : Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Hello,
My name is Ravinder Sharma. My wife (Snigdha Sharma) and I own the property at 8012 S 20th Avenue which is across
20th Ave. from the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. Based on the original plans and the
currently proposed ones, I respectfully request consideration and amendment of several elements of this plan to better
align with the neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 homes per acre (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the
area nor is it in keeping with the originally approved plan for density. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan
in key elements based on the currently submitted documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W.
South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Page 343
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more
compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were
approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved
applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and
allow Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details
appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus any
additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper
trees as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story
+30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-
1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are
on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of open space to maintain rural character.
One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is
completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger
context in which it is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback
lines, no privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built
throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines
outlined in the general and village development plans. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ravinder and Snigdha Sharma
8012 S 20th Avenue.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 344
Bradley A Wylam
From: NICHOLAS TORREZ
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:12 PM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: NICHOLAS TORREZ; cheveratrillo@gmail.com; hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Subject: Opposition to modification of stipulations on case Bella Rosa development,
Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Hello,
My name is Nicholas Torrez and I live at 2311 W Dobbins Road, which is appx 1 mile from the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-
47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8. I am in opposition to the changing of previously approved stipulations. Based on the original plans and the
currently proposed ones, I respectfully request consideration and amendment of several elements of this plan to better align with the
neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
The proposed site is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the area nor is it in
keeping with the originally approved plan for density. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan in key elements based on the
currently submitted documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th Ave. and W. South
Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are much more compatible
with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this development were approved and this
development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping with currently approved applications in terms of density, open
space, house height and also heat mitigation efforts.
Page 345
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of character" and allow Bella
Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the site details appear to
indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus any additional
requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum 50% 3" caliper trees as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact that 2-story +30' foot high
houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties, all of whom have S-1 homes with single stories. In
fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed development on the west and south are on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana
Plan calls for maintaining a feeling of open space to maintain rural character. One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from
major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is completely appropriate and in keeping with what all other developers along
19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (among other criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the larger context in which it
is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage-scaping"), staggered setback lines, no
privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being built throughout the
Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the guidelines outlined in the
general and village development plans.
Thank You,
Nicholas Torrez
Page 346
Bradley A Wylam
From: chevera trillo
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 8:04 AM
To: Elias Valencia; PDD PHO; Bradley A Wylam; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Case number: Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8
Hello,
My name is Chevera Trillo, I am a homeowner residing at 2311 West Dobbins Road, Phoenix. I am writing
with concern over the proposed Bella Rosa development, Z-47-17-8/2-22--Z-47-17-8.
I respectfully request consideration and amendment of several elements of this plan to better align with the
neighborhood.
The items of concern the current Bella Rosa plan calls for are:
3.51 acres per home (18 houses on 5 acres)
2 story+30' height homes
9% open space
The original stipulated Bella Rosa site plan called for:
3.03 houses per acre
2 story+30' height homes
~14% open space
As a homeowner in the area, I have considerable concerns over any modification that affects safety as this is
an area already dealing with traffic safety issues.
Additionally, the proposed site:
is not in keeping with the current design and density precedents that have been established in the area;
is not in keeping with the originally approved plan for density; and
it is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Plan in key elements based on the currently submitted
documents.
The last 2 approved R1-10 developments, Kimura and Andora, which are located at the intersection of 19th
Ave. and W. South Mountain Ave. (barely 600ft from Bella Rosa) have these requirements:
Kimura
3 houses per acre
All single story
16.5% open space
minimum lot width of 55'
Varied lot widths
Landscape setback from 19th Ave. is 154'
Energy Star building
Andora
2.5 houses per acre
All single story
17% open space
Page 347
minimum lot widths of 75'
Landscape setback from 19th Ave is 25'
Energy Star building
Bella Rosa should be held to the same design standards that Kimura and Andora have agreed to, which are
much more compatible with our rural character. Much has changed in the area since the original plans for this
development were approved and this development should be brought up to date concerning what is in keeping
with currently approved applications in terms of density, open space, house height and also heat mitigation
efforts.
Please consider the following items to require from this development to preserve our "certainty of
character" and allow Bella Rosa to better align with the established design precedents for our
community and the Rio Montana Plan:
Housing density no higher than the originally approved plan: 3.03
Single story homes (the only facade designs offered were single story in the application but the
site details appear to indicate all 2 story + 30' homes)
Landscaped setback from 19th Ave. no less than 25' (which is achievable with the originally
approved density)
Increased setback from 20th Ave and esp. if 2-story houses are approved.
Additional heat mitigation requirements: front yard trees to shade driveways and sidewalks plus
any additional requirements the city's heat mitigation department has designated. Minimum
50% 3" caliper trees as well.
Energy Star and other energy efficient/sustainable building methods
Electric vehicle charging
The set back from 20th Ave. is appreciated and should not be diminished but it does not ameliorate the fact
that 2-story +30' foot high houses would be towering over and looking into the western neighbor's properties,
all of whom have S-1 homes with single stories. In fact, all the neighbors surrounding this proposed
development on the west and south are on acre+ S-1 properties. The Rio Montana Plan calls for maintaining a
feeling of open space to maintain rural character. One way to do this has been to have deep setbacks from
major streets and requiring this feature for Bella Rosa is completely appropriate and in keeping with what all
other developers along 19th Ave. have agreed to.
As a reminder, the Rio Montana Plan calls for (excerpt from full criteria):
Any development to be sensitive to the surrounding area, inc. existing development, and consider the
larger context in which it is located.
Limiting the use of two story buildings
Provide deep overhangs/covered porches
Shade for pedestrian comfort
Trees on east and west sides of buildings
Varying roof lines, facade designs and materials, rear-loaded garages (no "garage- scaping"), staggered
setback lines, no privacy fencing
The common objective for single family development is more variety than standard subdivisions being
built throughout the Valley
The community simply wants the city to keep the promise it made to residents by holding developers to the
guidelines outlined in the general and village development plans.
Thank you for your time,
Chevera Trillo
Page 348
602.315.9774
cheveratrillo@gmail.com
Page 349
From: chevera trillo
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Date: Thursday, October 6, 2022 7:06:18 AM
My name is Chevera Torrez, 2311 W Dobbins Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
Once again I find myself concerned with the decisions that are being made by those that
represent our community.
I am supportive of responsible development that improves an area and provides for the quality
of living that all community members should be afforded. I support the decisions and
agreements that were made as part of the City and Community initiative with the Rio Montana
Plan -- which had a strong vision to develop this area in a responsible manner.
I support development that maintains the character of our rural community and is compatible
with the agreements of Rio Montana.
I do not support PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8, which goes against the Rio Montana plan -- This
application does not meet the standards that the community in good faith negotiated with the
City. Please represent your community and vote against setting a bad precedent.
Thankyou for your time and consideration.
Chevera Torrez
Page 350
Bradley A Wylam
From: PDD Planning Commission
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 11:11 AM
To: Bradley A Wylam
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Brad, Please add to correspondence
From: Julie Willcox
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 8:44 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Good morning,
I am writing to oppose the Bella Rosa development on 19th Ave. PHO-2-22--Z-47-17-8
Increasing the density from 3 to 3.5 houses per acres does not fit in with the community or follow the Rio
Montana plan. The property is surrounded by S-1 properties and the density is not appropriate for the
area. Our community has worked hard to preserve our rural way of life & preserve the land close to South
Mountain. We see the zonings continually eroded by multiple re-zoning/re-submissions. Each time increasing
the density over what is appropriate for the area.
I do support responsible zoning that reflects the area & follows all of the Rio Montana plan.
I would like to register to speak & donate my time to Jewel Clark as a spokesperson for our entire community.
Thank you,
Julie Willcox
9050 S 23rd Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 351
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-22-2 - Approximately 3,300 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of Tatum
Boulevard and the Loop 101 Freeway (Ordinance G-7051)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
and to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
ordinance if approved. Request to amend the Desert Ridge Specific Plan.
Summary
Application: GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to modify standards for
Superblock 9, Development Parcel 9.CP.2 regarding uses permitted, accessory uses,
maximum building height and floor area ratio.
Acreage: 108.34 acres
Owners: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A.
VPC Info Only: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug.
2, 2022, for information only .
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 13,
2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 3,300 feet west of the southwest corner of Tatum Boulevard and the
Loop 101 Freeway.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: N/A
Page 352
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 353
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE DESERT RIDGE
SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTED JULY 18, 1990, REFLECTING
AMENDMENTS TO SUPERBLOCK 9, DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 9.CP.2
AS SET FORTH IN APPLICATION GPA-DSTV-2-22-2, DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 6, Superblock 9 and Development Parcel 9.CP.2 of
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, be amended as set forth by Application GPA-DSTV-2-22-2 and
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference is made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. 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 2nd day of November, 2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 354
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Amendment Language (3 Pages)
Page 355
EXHIBIT A
Amend Chapter 6 (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL REGULATIONS), Section C.5.
(Development Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-39 to 6-40 as follows:
***
9.CP.2 – Development Parcel 9.CP.2
Size: 109 acres
Uses permitted:
Except as modified below, permitted uses shall be as
indicated in Section 626, Commerce Park District, and public
assembly uses pursuant to Section 647.A.1.i, Special Permits, of the
Zoning to be applied:
1. Commerce Park District per Section 626 of the City of Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance (as modified below) to include the following options:
Research Park Option
Business Park Option
2. SP ( special permit - only to allow public INDOOR AND OUTDOOR
assembly-related uses per Section 647.A.1.i). A SPECIAL PERMIT
SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
ARE MET:
a. ASSEMBLY USES ARE ANCILLARY TO THE PRINCIPAL
USE.
b. ASSEMBLY USES ARE NOT INTENDED FOR THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.
c. ASSEMBLY USES SHALL NOT REQUIRE PARKING BEYOND
WHAT CAN BE PROVIDED ONSITE.
Additional Uses Permitted: The following uses not typically allowed in
Phoenix CP/BP are permitted in this parcel:
a. ART GALLERIES, PRIVATE.
a.b. Car washes.
b.c. Child care centers.
c.d. Self service “mini-storage” complex (retail storage warehousing).
d.e. Motion picture production and televisions broadcast studio.
Page 356
f. MUSEUM, PRIVATE.
e.g. Veterinary offices. The building and use shall be constructed and
operated so as to prevent objectionable noise and odor outside the
walls of the office. No boarding or keeping of animals is permitted,
except for short periods of observation necessary for medical care.
Accessory Uses: In addition to the CP/BP accessory uses, the following
accessory uses shall also be permitted in this parcel:
Limited incidental retail uses including gift shops, flower shops, snack bars,
cafeterias, pharmacy, office supplies, shoe repair, HEALTH AND FITNESS
CENTERS, HEALTH CLINICS, and travel bureaus, financial institution offices
as accessory uses conducted for the convenience of the employees on the
premises, wholly within a principal building:
a. The entrance to said accessory use shall be from within the exterior
walls of the building only.
a. INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE AMENITIES AND GATHERING
SPACES.
c.b. No sign or other external evidence of said accessory use shall be visible
from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property.
d. No individual use described herein shall exceed 2,500 square feet of
GLA in the complex.
e. The total building square footage of the above limited incidental
accessory uses above shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the total
allowable building square footage in development parcel 9.CP.2.
Locational Criteria for Certain Uses: Within this parcel, certain additional
locational criteria apply:
a. Only professional administrative, clerical and sales offices are
permitted adjacent to roadways surrounding this parcel. Manufacturing
and industrial park uses must be screened from Mayo Boulevard by
office buildings.
Yard, Height, and Intensity: The following standards apply in place of the
standards which would otherwise be applicable:
a. Maximum Building Height: 2 5 stories not to exceed 40 85 feet,
MEZZANINE LEVELS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A STORY.
b Lot Coverage: none.
c. Floor Area Ratio: .20 0.60 overall limit for Parcel 9.CP.2. THIS
SHALL SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE UNDERGROUND PARKING;
Page 357
individual developments may be up to .25.
d. Required Setbacks:
1) 50 feet from Mayo Boulevard rights-of-way; 30 feet from
perimeter lot line on other streets; 20 feet not on a street.
2) 30 feet from interior lot line on a street; 10 feet not on a street.
3) No maneuvering or parking is permitted in these required setback
areas except for ingress and egress to allowable parking areas.
All setback area except driveways must be landscaped. 25% of
the required trees in the arterial and collector street rights-of-way
and adjacent setback areas shall be 24-inch box or larger.
Building Orientation: Service storage and delivery areas shall be screened
from any public rights-of-way, including the Pima Freeway.
Additional Standards: Section C.4.D in Chapter 6 of the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan apply.
***
Page 358
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 8, 2022
Application: GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Location: Approximately 3,300 feet west of the southwest
corner of Tatum Boulevard and the Loop 101
Freeway
Acreage: 108.34 acres
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to
modify standards for Superblock 9, Development
Parcel 9.CP.2 regarding uses permitted, accessory
uses, maximum building height and floor area ratio
Desert View Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: September 13, 2022
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in
Exhibit A
FINDINGS:
1) The proposed amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan will reinforce Parcel
9.CP.2 as a future destination for investment within the Loop 101 employment
corridor.
2) The proposal updates development standards to allow flexibility to meet the
needs of modern corporate office requirements.
3) The subject site is appropriate for additional height and floor area for commerce
park uses, as it is strategically located near freeways and undeveloped land,
away from single-family residential uses.
Page 359
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Desert Ridge is an approximately
5,700-acre master planned
community located in northeast
Phoenix generally bounded by the
Central Arizona Canal, Pinnacle
Peak Road, 32nd Street, and 64th
Street. At its inception, the planning
area consisted entirely of
undeveloped land held in trust by the
Arizona State Land Department. The
Desert Ridge Specific Plan was
approved by the Phoenix City
Council in July 1990 and is the
governing land use document for
Desert Ridge. Desert Ridge is
divided into Superblocks, each with Desert Ridge Location Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
their own individual land uses and
regulations.
This amendment pertains to Superblock 9,
Parcel 9.CP.2, located approximately 3,300
feet west of the southwest corner of Tatum
Boulevard and the Loop 101 Freeway. The
parcel is owned by the Arizona State Land
Department and is primarily vacant,
undeveloped land, except for an electric
utility substation on a portion of the parcel.
The site is designated as Mixed Use
(Commercial and Commerce/Business
Park) on the General Plan Land Use Map
and is located within the Desert Aerial Location Map, Source: Planning and Development
Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center in Department
the General Plan. The Desert Ridge
Specific Plan currently allows development on Parcel 9.CP.2 pursuant to the Commerce Park
zoning district with a modified use list and modified development standards, including a height
limit of two stories and 40 feet and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.2.
Page 360
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Page 3
General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Major Employment Centers Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department Development Department
The proposal, as shown in the draft language attached as Exhibit A, is to amend the
Desert Ridge Specific Plan by changing the development regulations that apply to
Parcel 9.CP.2. The proposal will make adjustments to the permitted uses and accessory
uses allowed on the parcel; and will increase the maximum height to five stories, 85 feet
and increase the maximum floor area ratio to 0.6.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The area surrounding Parcel 9.CP.2 Land Use
is primarly freeways and undeveloped
land. The Loop 101 freeway is
North Loop 101 Freeway
directly north of the site while the SR-
51 freeway is directly west. South of Recreation area/park
the subject site is the Reach 11 South
(Reach 11)
recreation area. Southeast of the
subject site is a retirement East Vacant
community.
West SR-51 Freeway
Southeast Retirement Community
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY
• JOB CREATION (EMPLOYERS); LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support General
Plan Land Use Map and zoning changes that will facilitate the location of
Page 361
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Page 4
employment generating uses in each of the designated employment
centers.
The subject site is located within the Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment
Center, as designated by the General Plan. The proposed amendment to the
Desert Ridge Specific Plan will strengthen the employment center by attracting
job-generating uses to the subject site, through adjustments to the development
standards, making the site more attractive for corporate office employers.
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Encourage development of
the taller and larger buildings in Areas of Change away from Single-family
and low-rise, multifamily housing.
The subject site is located adjacent to the Loop 101 and SR-51 freeways to the
north and west and is located more than a quarter mile away from single-family
residential uses, in an area planned for non-residential development.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• CERTAINTY & CHARACTER: LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate land uses with
the greatest height and most intense uses within limits based on village
character, land use needs, infrastructure and transportation system
capacity.
The subject site is located within a large area designated as Commercial and
Commerce/Business Park on the General Plan Land Use Map and is within a
designated Major Employment Center. The proposal concentrates higher
intensity commerce park development within this area, in close proximity to
transportation options, and away from residential uses.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
The Water Services Department commented that the property has existing water and
sewer mains that can potentially serve the development. In addition, the Water Services
Department commented that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time
due to a variety of factors.
The Street Transportation Department requested that the Arizona State Land
Department complete a Traffic Impact Study and Infrastructure Assessment Study to
address transportation needs prior to City Council hearing this GPA request and that a
Development Agreement (IGA) between the Arizona State Land Department and the
be completed and approved by City Council.
Page 362
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Page 5
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
As of the writing of this staff report, staff has not received any letters in support or
opposition to this amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DSTV-2-22-2, as shown in the recommended text
in Exhibit A. The proposed amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan promotes
economic development in an area that is within close proximity to two freeways and
within a Major Employment Center.
Writer
Anthony Grande
September 8, 2022
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
A: Proposed Amendment Language (3 pages)
Desert Ridge Specific Plan Map
Page 363
EXHIBIT A
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2: Desert Ridge Specific Plan Amendment
Proposed Language:
Amend Chapter 6 (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL REGULATIONS), Section C.5.
(Development Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-39 to 6-40 as follows:
***
9.CP.2 – Development Parcel 9.CP.2
Size: 109 acres
Uses permitted:
• Except as modified below, permitted uses shall be as indicated in Section
626, Commerce Park District, and public assembly uses pursuant to
Section 647.A.1.i, Special Permits, of the City of Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Zoning to be applied:
1. Commerce Park District per Section 626 of the City of Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance (as modified below) to include the following options:
• Research Park Option
• Business Park Option
2. SP ( special permit - only to allow public INDOOR AND OUTDOOR
assembly-related uses per Section 647.A.1.i). A SPECIAL PERMIT
SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
ARE MET:
a. ASSEMBLY USES ARE ANCILLARY TO THE PRINCIPAL
USE.
b. ASSEMBLY USES ARE NOT INTENDED FOR THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.
c. ASSEMBLY USES SHALL NOT REQUIRE PARKING BEYOND
WHAT CAN BE PROVIDED ONSITE.
Additional Uses Permitted: The following uses not typically allowed in
Phoenix CP/BP are permitted in this parcel:
a. ART GALLERIES, PRIVATE.
Page 364
a.b. Car washes.
b.c. Child care centers.
c.d. Self service “mini-storage” complex (retail storage warehousing).
d.e. Motion picture production and televisions broadcast studio.
f. MUSEUM, PRIVATE.
e.g. Veterinary offices. The building and use shall be constructed and
operated so as to prevent objectionable noise and odor outside the
walls of the office. No boarding or keeping of animals is permitted,
except for short periods of observation necessary for medical care.
Accessory Uses: In addition to the CP/BP accessory uses, the following
accessory uses shall also be permitted in this parcel:
Limited incidental retail uses including gift shops, flower shops, snack bars,
cafeterias, pharmacy, office supplies, shoe repair, HEALTH AND FITNESS
CENTERS, HEALTH CLINICS, and travel bureaus, financial institution offices
as accessory uses conducted for the convenience of the employees on the
premises, wholly within a principal building:
a. The entrance to said accessory use shall be from within the exterior
walls of the building only.
a. INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE AMENITIES AND GATHERING
SPACES.
c.b. No sign or other external evidence of said accessory use shall be visible
from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property.
d. No individual use described herein shall exceed 2,500 square feet of
GLA in the complex.
e. The total building square footage of the above limited incidental
accessory uses above shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the total
allowable building square footage in development parcel 9.CP.2.
Locational Criteria for Certain Uses: Within this parcel, certain additional
locational criteria apply:
a. Only professional administrative, clerical and sales offices are
permitted adjacent to roadways surrounding this parcel. Manufacturing
and industrial park uses must be screened from Mayo Boulevard by
office buildings.
Page 365
Yard, Height, and Intensity: The following standards apply in place of the
standards which would otherwise be applicable:
a. Maximum Building Height: 2 5 stories not to exceed 40 85 feet,
MEZZANINE LEVELS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A STORY.
b Lot Coverage: none.
c. Floor Area Ratio: .20 0.60 overall limit for Parcel 9.CP.2. THIS
SHALL SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE UNDERGROUND PARKING;
individual developments may be up to .25.
d. Required Setbacks:
1) 50 feet from Mayo Boulevard rights-of-way; 30 feet from
perimeter lot line on other streets; 20 feet not on a street.
2) 30 feet from interior lot line on a street; 10 feet not on a street.
3) No maneuvering or parking is permitted in these required setback
areas except for ingress and egress to allowable parking areas.
All setback area except driveways must be landscaped. 25% of
the required trees in the arterial and collector street rights-of-way
and adjacent setback areas shall be 24-inch box or larger.
Building Orientation: Service storage and delivery areas shall be screened
from any public rights-of-way, including the Pima Freeway.
Additional Standards: Section C.4.D in Chapter 6 of the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan apply.
***
Page 366
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CA RA
DR SH N GE
R
4 4T
D MA
LOC K N DR
H ST
W OO DR
ROUG
H
RI RD T
D ER HS PATH
FIN
DE
40 T RD
O WA R
Y
TRA
AN IL A
B LAZE
AVI RD
R COLL
E
DEE C
E CACTUS D R VA TO
LON R LL E R
Y DR
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
CO
LLE
CT
ROS E G OR
A RD EN B
LN
Page 367 64TH ST
52N D ST 56TH ST
TATUM BLVD
BEARDSLEY RD I
UT OP
A
RD
MAYO B LVD
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Desert Ridge Specific Plan Area
36TH ST
Superblock 9
UNION HILLS DR
9.CP.2
32ND ST
Miles CHAUNCY LN
0 0.25 0.5
M:\Projects\DRSP_Parcel_Map_9.CP.2\MXD\Parcel_9.CP.2.mxd
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 2, 2022
Proposal Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to modify
standards for Superblock 9, Development Parcel 9.CP.2
regarding uses permitted, accessory uses, maximum
building height and floor area ratio
Location Approximately 3,300 feet west of the southwest corner of
Tatum Boulevard and the Loop 101 Freeway
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, the
parcel proposed to be amended, and the surrounding context. Mr. Grande described
the Loop 101 employment corridor and the reason for amending the subject parcel. He
described the changes proposed to the plan text, including changes to the uses
permitted, accessory uses, maximum building height, and maximum floor area ratio. He
further described the existing height limits on the Desert Ridge parcels south of the
Loop 101 and finally discussed the next steps for the proposed plan amendment.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Dickson stated that the Desert Ridge Community Association is in
support of the staff recommendation. Committee Member Younger stated that he
agreed.
Committee Member Hankins asked about the elevation of the parcel and the adjacent
freeway. Mr. Grande stated that the information could be provided at the next hearing.
Chair Bowser stated that the grade of the freeway north of the site is only a few feet
higher than the parcel.
Committee Member Nowell asked about the definition of floor area ratio. Mr. Grande
provided an explanation of the calculation of floor area ratio. Chair Bowser asked for
clarification on whether it includes the full development site. Mr. Grande stated that the
calculation includes the full development site and underground parking is excluded from
the calculation.
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 368
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
August 2, 2022
Page 2
Mr. Nowell asked about the inclusion of art galleries and museums in the permitted use
list and the reason for including the word “private” in the use description. Mr. Grande
stated that inclusion of those uses would allow flexibility for an employer on the site to
provide amenities for employees. Joshua Bednarek, staff, added that the inclusion of
the word “private” may not be necessary in the definition, but it is often how it is written
in the zoning ordinance.
Chair Bowser stated that the height and floor area ratio could be increased beyond
what is being proposed, adding that he believes attracting an office use at the subject
parcel would be a great addition and adding flexibility in the standards is desirable. Mr.
Nowell asked about the visibility of a taller building at this location from the closest
residences. Chair Bowser stated that a stepback approach, with heights increasing
further from the residential areas, would be preferred.
Mr. Dickson stated that the committee has approved height increases on other Desert
Ridge parcels and that increasing the limit at the subject parcel is a good idea.
Ms. Hankins asked about transportation improvements that would be required with a
development at this location. Chair Bowser replied that Mayo Boulevard will need to be
extended for this development and a transportation analysis will need to be conducted
by the developer, further stating that Mayo Boulevard will eventually need to be
extended to pass over the freeway. Mr. Bednarek stated that a future developer at this
location would be required to submit a traffic analysis and recommendations for
infrastructure improvements would be addressed then.
Chair Bowser asked for clarification on the next step in the process. Mr. Grande
replied that it would return to the committee in September for a public hearing and vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
STAFF COMMENTS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 369
ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Date of VPC Meeting September 13, 2022
Proposal Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to modify
standards for Superblock 9, Development Parcel 9.CP.2
regarding uses permitted, accessory uses, maximum
building height and floor area ratio
Location Approximately 3,300 feet west of the southwest corner of
Tatum Boulevard and the Loop 101 Freeway
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, the
parcel proposed to be amended, and the surrounding context. Mr. Grande described the
Loop 101 employment corridor and the reason for amending the subject parcel. He
described the changes proposed to the plan text, including changes to the uses
permitted, accessory uses, maximum building height, and maximum floor area ratio. He
further described the existing height limits on the Desert Ridge parcels south of the
Loop 101 and finally reviewed the staff findings and recommendation for approval.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Powell asked when the current language was added to the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan. Mr. Grande replied that the current language is not the original
approval from 1990, but it was added in one of the amendments since then.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the relationship of this site to the Reach 11
and whether it would remain as parkland into the future. Chair Bowser noted that the
land is owned by the federal government. Mr. Grande stated that the amendment under
consideration would not directly affect the Reach 11, as the subject parcel does not
overlap with it, further noting that the designation for Reach 11 is for open space on the
General Plan and a public process would be required to make any changes to the
designation.
Mr. Kirkilas asked about the rationale for the proposed five story height limit. Mr.
Grande replied that the proposed height limit is expected to provide the necessary
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 370
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
September 13, 2022
Page 2
flexibility to meet the needs of a modern office development. Mr. Kirkilas asked for
clarification that the height is limited both by a maximum number of feet and a maximum
number of stories. Mr. Grande replied that there is a maximum building height both in
number of stories and number of feet.
Chair Bowser stated that a General Plan Amendment would need to be processed in
order for any other uses to occur at the Reach 11.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-DSTV-2-22-2, per
the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Powell.
VOTE:
9-0, Motion to recommend approval, per the staff recommendation, passed with
Committee Members Bowser, Lagrave, Dean, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Powell, Reynolds,
and Younger in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 371
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-2-22-2
Location: Approximately 3,300 feet west of the southwest corner of Tatum
Boulevard and the Loop 101 Freeway
Acreage: 108.34
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to modify standards for
Superblock 9, Development Parcel 9.CP.2 regarding uses permitted,
accessory uses, maximum building height and floor area ratio.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Owner: State Land Department
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/2/2022 Information only.
Desert View 9/13/2022 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Desert View Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-2-22-2, per
the Desert View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Busching
Second: Vice-Chair Mangum
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan will reinforce Parcel
9.CP.2 as a future destination for investment within the Loop 101 employment corridor.
2. The proposal updates development standards to allow flexibility to meet the needs of
modern corporate office requirements.
3. The subject site is appropriate for additional height and floor area for commerce park
uses, as it is strategically located near freeways and undeveloped land, away from
single-family residential uses.
Page 372
Proposed Language:
Amend Chapter 6 (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL REGULATIONS), Section C.5.
(Development Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-39 to 6-40 as follows:
***
9.CP.2 – Development Parcel 9.CP.2
Size: 109 acres
Uses permitted:
x Except as modified below, permitted uses shall be as indicated in Section 626,
Commerce Park District, and public assembly uses pursuant to Section
647.A.1.i, Special Permits, of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning to be applied:
1. Commerce Park District per Section 626 of the City of Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance (as modified below) to include the following options:
x Research Park Option
x Business Park Option
2. SP ( special permit - only to allow public INDOOR AND OUTDOOR assembly-
related uses per Section 647.A.1.i). A SPECIAL PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
a. ASSEMBLY USES ARE ANCILLARY TO THE PRINCIPAL USE.
b. ASSEMBLY USES ARE NOT INTENDED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
c. ASSEMBLY USES SHALL NOT REQUIRE PARKING BEYOND WHAT
CAN BE PROVIDED ONSITE.
Additional Uses Permitted: The following uses not typically allowed in Phoenix CP/BP
are permitted in this parcel:
a. ART GALLERIES, PRIVATE.
a.b. Car washes.
b.c. Childcare centers.
c.d. Self-service “mini-storage” complex (retail storage warehousing).
d.e. Motion picture production and televisions broadcast studio.
f. MUSEUM, PRIVATE.
e.g. Veterinary offices. The building and use shall be constructed and operated so as
to prevent objectionable noise and odor outside the walls of the office. No
boarding or keeping of animals is permitted, except for short periods of
observation necessary for medical care.
Page 373
Accessory Uses: In addition to the CP/BP accessory uses, the following accessory
uses shall also be permitted in this parcel:
Limited incidental retail uses including gift shops, flower shops, snack bars, cafeterias,
pharmacy, office supplies, shoe repair, HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTERS, HEALTH
CLINICS, and travel bureaus, financial institution offices as accessory uses conducted for
the convenience of the employees on the premises, wholly within a principal building:
a. The entrance to said accessory use shall be from within the exterior walls of the
building only.
a. INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE AMENITIES AND GATHERING SPACES.
c.b. No sign or other external evidence of said accessory use shall be visible from a
public thoroughfare or adjacent property.
d. No individual use described herein shall exceed 2,500 square feet of GLA in the
complex.
e. The total building square footage of the above limited incidental accessory uses
above shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the total allowable building square
footage in development parcel 9.CP.2.
Locational Criteria for Certain Uses: Within this parcel, certain additional locational
criteria apply:
a. Only professional administrative, clerical and sales offices are permitted
adjacent to roadways surrounding this parcel. Manufacturing and industrial park
uses must be screened from Mayo Boulevard by office buildings.
Yard, Height, and Intensity: The following standards apply in place of the standards
which would otherwise be applicable:
a. Maximum Building Height: 2 5 stories not to exceed 40 85 feet, MEZZANINE
LEVELS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A STORY.
b Lot Coverage: none.
c. Floor Area Ratio: .20 0.60 overall limit for Parcel 9.CP.2. THIS SHALL
SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE UNDERGROUND PARKING; individual
developments may be up to .25.
d. Required Setbacks:
1) 50 feet from Mayo Boulevard rights-of-way; 30 feet from perimeter lot line
on other streets; 20 feet not on a street.
2) 30 feet from interior lot line on a street; 10 feet not on a street.
3) No maneuvering or parking is permitted in these required setback areas
except for ingress and egress to allowable parking areas. All setback area
except driveways must be landscaped. 25% of the required trees in the
arterial and collector street rights-of-way and adjacent setback areas shall
be 24-inch box or larger.
Page 374
Building Orientation: Service storage and delivery areas shall be screened from any
public rights-of-way, including the Pima Freeway.
Additional Standards: Section C.4.D in Chapter 6 of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan
apply.
***
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Les
Scott at 602-261-8980, leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 375
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-27-22-6 (Zola North Central PUD) -
Northeast Corner of 7th Street and Colter Street (Ordinance G-7052)
Request to hold a public hearing on the request to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning
Application Z-27-22-6 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.55 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: 7th Street and Colter, LLC
Applicant: ZOM Living
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on
June 7, 2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Sept. 6, 2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of
14-2-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, 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 Oct. 13, 2022. A 3/4 vote is not required.
Location
Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter Street
Council District: 6
Page 376
Parcel Address: 5201 N. 7th St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 377
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-27-22-6) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.55-acre site located at the northeast corner
of 7th Street and Colter Street in a portion of Section 16, Township 2 North, Range 3
East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-2”
(Intermediate Commercial) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 378
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Zola North Central PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped August 26, 2022, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:
b. Page 11, D3: Parking, Section A. Vehicular standards: Update Item 1.
Resident and Visitor Parking (Minimum) to Efficiency Units: 1.3 spaces per
dwelling unit, 1-Bedroom Units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, 2-Bedroom
Units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
c. Page 11, D3: Parking, Section A. Vehicular standards: Add a sentence that
reads “A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be utilized
for visitor parking purposes.”
2. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the east side of 7th Street, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
4. The developer shall fully fund a traffic control device at the intersection of 7th
Street and Colter Street, as determined and approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation
identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted
until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Page 379
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. The developer shall construct a bus stop pad along northbound 7th Street. The
Bus stop pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be located from the intersection
of Colter Street according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
10. Pedestrian access gates shall be provided in patio walls at the ground floor units
fronting a public sidewalk and pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
to the ground floor units to the sidewalk, 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 2nd day of November,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 380
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 381
EXHIBIT A
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL NO. 1:
THE WEST 337 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
16, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 105 FEET OF THE WEST 221 FEET; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF; AND
EXCEPT THE WEST 40 FEET THEREOF; AND
EXCEPT ALL COAL, ASPHALTUM, OIL, GASES, FERTLIZERS, FOSSILS AND
OTHER LIKE SUBSTANCES IN OR UNDER SAID LAND AS RESERVED UNTO THE
STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE PATENT TO SAID LAND.
PARCEL NO: 2:
THE SOUTH 105 FEET OF THE WEST 221 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF; AND
EXCEPT THE WEST 40 FEET THEREOF; AND
EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
PROPERTY:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALR RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 16, DISTANT 33 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER THEREOF;
Page 382
THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL TO AND 33 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH
LINE THEREOF;
THENCE EASE, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 16, A DISTANCE OF 7 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH, PARALLEL TO AND 40 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TO A POINT WHICH IS 45 FEET
NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO A POINT WHICH IS 30 FEET NORTH AND 55 FEET
EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 16;
THENCE EAST, PARALLEL TO AND 30 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TO A POINT WHICH IS 30 FEET
NORTH AND 25 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER THEREOF;
THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL TO AND 25 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH
LINE THEREOF;
THENCE EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 16 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT ALL COAL, ASPHALTUM, OIL, GASES, FERTILIZERS, FOSSILS AND
OTHER LIKE SUBSTANCES IN OR UNDER SAID LAND AS RESERVED UNTO THE
STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE PATENT TO SAID LAND.
Page 383
Page 384
ATTACHMENT B
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-27-22-6
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 7, 2022
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter Street
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee Members Jerryd Bayless, Greg Abbott, and Craig Tribken joined the
meeting during this item, bringing the quorum to 15 members.
Chair Jay Swart shared that he met with a neighborhood group regarding this request
for over two hours, it was a productive meeting, and that he formally requested a copy
of the traffic study from Mr. Wood. Chair Swart added that the item would return for
recommendation no earlier than September and requested from staff that this item be
the only item on the agenda to allow sufficient time for public speakers. Chair Swart
also asked Mr. Wood to meet with concerned neighborhood groups often and if
possible, in person. Chair Swart also asked staff to get more information on when
Village Planning Committee meeting will be held in person. Chair Swart reiterated that
this item is being heard for information only, the committee will not be voting on the item
at this time and introduced the case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Nick Wood, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, introduced himself on
behalf of the developer, ZOM. Mr. Wood confirmed that this item was set to be
presented for action no earlier than the September meeting and that there would be
several neighborhood meetings before then, per a conversation with Chair Swart. Mr.
Wood displayed an aerial image of the site and discussed its surrounding context and
uses, including a unique traffic barrier on Colter Street and photos of the site. Mr. Wood
then shared the project’s conceptual site plan, development standards table, and
conceptual landscape plan, which included a discussion of proposed parking as it
relates to the unit mix. Mr. Wood next displayed renderings to discuss landscaping,
architectural features, and amenities.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 385
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Craig Tribken shared that he was familiar with the site and its current use and that the
unique traffic blocking measures on Colter Street minimizes cut-through traffic in
Windsor Square.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mike Freret introduced himself as the Vice President of the Windsor Square Historic
District. Mr. Freret shared the boundaries of the district, which is directly to west of the
subject site, across 7th Street. Mr. Freret gave a brief history of the historic district. Mr.
Freret stated that the project is inappropriately dense given its proximity to the historic
district, citing concerns for traffic on 7th Street. Mr. Freret stated that Windsor Square is
not anti-development, adding that they have worked with developers in the past to
design projects that exist in balance with the surrounding neighborhood.
Susan Rhoads introduced herself as a resident of Windsor Square since 2014 whose
home backs up to 7th Street south of Colter Street. Ms. Rhoads shared concerns about
the proposed development blocking views of Piestewa Peak, increased traffic and cut-
through traffic in the neighborhood, privacy concerns with patios facing 7th Street and
concluded that she believes the site’s current zoning designation of C-2 to be
appropriate.
Larry Whitesell introduced himself as a nearby resident, residing on 20th Street. Mr.
Whitesell shared that he does not agree with the project’s development standards as it
relates to the Walkable Urban Code, as Walkable Urban Code applicability is only along
existing and proposed light rail lines. Mr. Whitesell also shared concerns about
adequate guest parking and parking along Colter Street.
Mary Crozier introduced herself as the President of the North Central Phoenix
Homeowners’ Association. Ms. Crozier asserted that communication from the developer
has not been timely, citing a recent project on 7th Street and Marlette where neighbors
were excluded from the conversation, and on the other end of the spectrum, the project
at 5727 N. 7th Street where the applicant began their community engagement two
years before filing their rezoning application. Ms. Crozier added that the project as
proposed does not create a superior product, and that they look forward to continuing to
work with the applicant collaboratively on this proposal.
Sandy Grunow shared that Mary Crozier’s statement covered her comments.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Mr. Wood prefaced his rebuttal with a discussion of the current housing shortage due to
an influx of population to the Phoenix metro area. Mr. Wood stated that it is important to
provide new residents with housing closer to the amenities of the city center rather than
responding to this crisis by furthering urban sprawl. Mr. Wood claimed that this project’s
location is appropriate being adjacent to a major arterial. Mr. Wood addressed the prior
comments stating that a PUD was necessary given the desired height and density, the
project will generate significantly less traffic than nearby projects due to its relatively
lower density, and the agreement to push the action item to September will give
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 386
community members and the applicant additional time to collaborate. Mr. Wood
concluded his response by comparing the proposal with the densities and intensities of
several recent developments in the project’s vicinity.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 387
ATTACHMENT C
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
Camelback East Village Planning September 6, 2022
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date October 6, 2022
Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (2.55 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (2.55 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter Street
Owner 7th & Colter, LLC
Applicant ZOM Living
Representative Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
Major Arterial
7th Street 40-foot east half street
Street Map Street
Classification
Colter Street Local Street 30-foot north half street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposed development will provide multifamily residential uses along a major arterial
street along a bus route and within proximity to employment and commercial areas.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Plan and design communities and neighborhoods to be pedestrian
friendly and walkable.
Page 388
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
The proposed PUD narrative incorporates numerous streetscape and design standards to
promote a pedestrian-friendly environment along adjacent street frontages.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The proposed PUD narrative requires that secured bicycle parking spaces be provided for
residents, in addition to a bicycle amenity such as a bicycle “fix-it” station. The project will
support tenants and visitors who use all modes of transportation and is located along a
current bicycle and pedestrian improvement project corridor on Colter Street.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed development will provide trees and shade within the site and along adjacent
street frontages which will reduce the urban heat island effect while also improving
thermal comfort to site users and the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 10.
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Land Use Zoning
On Site School C-2
North Office C-2
South (across Colter
Multifamily residential C-2
Road)
East Condominiums R-4
West (Across 7th Street) Commercial uses C-2
Page 389
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 2.55-acre site located on the northeast corner of 7th
Street and Colter Street from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential. The site contains a two-story building
currently used as a charter school. The site fronts 7th Street, a major arterial, and is
located along a current bicycle and pedestrian improvement project corridor on
Colter Street.
2. The General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the subject site is
Commercial. The Commercial land use
category accommodates office, retail,
service and multifamily development at
varying scales and intensity of uses. This
request is consistent with that
designation. The Land Use Map
designations to the north, east, south,
and west of the subject site are
Commercial. General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
Development Department
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site is zoned C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) and is currently being used
for a charter school. The subject site
fronts an existing bus stop on 7th Street
and a planned bicycle corridor on Colter
Street. The Colter Street Pedestrian and
Bicycle Improvement project has a stated
goal to improve the safety and mobility for
people walking and riding bicycles on
Colter Street between 15th Avenue and
20th Street. The subject site is located
within Phase II of that project plan, which Zoning Map, Source: City of Phoenix
proposes a bicycle/pedestrian HAWK Planning and Development Department
signal at the intersection of 7th Street and
Colter Street.
To the north is an office building zoned C-2. To the south, across Colter Street, is a
multifamily residential community zoned C-2. Across 7th Street are various
Page 390
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
commercial uses such as office, retail and a hair salon, also zoned C-2. To the west
are condominiums, zoned R-4 (Multifamily Residential District).
The nearest single-family residential subdivision located to the east, across 8th
Place, is approximately 360 feet from the subject site. The nearest single-family
residential subdivision located to the west, across 7th Street, is approximately 225
feet from the subject site and is behind C-2-zoned commercial uses.
The proposal is consistent with the uses in the surrounding area and with the scale,
character, and intensity of previously approved PUDs near the subject site.
Name of PUD Location Distance Height Density
from
subject site
Zola North Northeast corner of 7th St n/a 60 feet 78.50
Central and Colter Street du/ac, 200
unit max
Broadstone Approximately 180 feet 0.5 miles 56 feet 80.5 du/ac
on 7th south of the southeast
corner of 7th Street and
Palo Verde Lane
Alta Marlette Approximately 165 feet east 1 mile 35-feet maximum 58.24
of the northeast corner of height for 3 stories du/ac,
7th Street and Marlette 45-feet maximum 229 unit
Avenue for 4 stories max
48-feet maximum
height of
internalized parking
structure
Willowick Southwest corner of 16th 1 mile 65 feet 68.7 du/ac
Street and Colter Street
Alta CB Approximately 190 feet of 0.3 miles 4 stories, 60 feet 75 du/ac
(Camelback) the southeast corner of 7th
Street and Camelback
Road
Alta Approximately 440 feet 1.15 miles 56 feet 64.28
Bluewater west of the northwest du/ac,
corner of 18th Street and 216 unit
Camelback Road max
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
Page 391
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
5. Land Use
The PUD proposes a multifamily residential development. The PUD allows for
multifamily residential and C-2 commercial uses. The narrative does prohibit certain
C-2 uses such as gas stations, tobacco-oriented retailers, and car washes.
6. Development Standards
The PUD proposes a multifamily
residential building with a maximum
building height of 60 feet and a maximum
of 200 dwelling units. A minimum of 7%
of the gross site area will be open space,
which is more than the minimum open
space requirements for multifamily
residential uses in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. Parking for residents and
guests will be provided on site in a
parking structure, which will be primarily
screened by the residential building. The
PUD also includes screening standards Conceptual Site Plan, Source: LRK Inc.
for the garage when visible from the
street.
Enhanced bicycle amenities will be
provided on site, such as secure bicycle
parking and a publicly-accessible bicycle
feature, such as a “fix it” station.
The project site has two street frontages
along its western and southern
perimeters. The PUD proposes
pedestrian-friendly design standards such
as ground-floor residential units fronting
the adjacent streets, shaded detached
sidewalks along both street frontages and
landscaped setbacks with enhanced
Proposed Cross Section, Source: PUD
Narrative
shading standards. The proposed
streetscape is in line with required cross
section, and provides a safe, shaded and
well-designed space for pedestrians and
bus riders.
Page 392
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
Stipulation No. 2 requires that traffic calming be provided to slow vehicle traffic
exiting the property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk.
Further, Stipulation No. 4 requires that the developer fully fund a traffic control
device at the intersection of 7th Street and Colter Street, which will allow for safe
pedestrian and bicycle crossings.
The applicant originally proposed a reduction in the parking requirement for the
multifamily residential development, to allow 239 parking spaces. In response to
community concerns, the applicant has updated the parking requirement to the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance standards, to provide 287 parking spaces. Ten percent
of the parking will be reserved for visitors. These changes are reflected in
Stipulation Nos. 1b and 1c.
Below is a summary of the key development standards set forth in the narrative.
Development Standards
Standard Proposed
Density 78.50 dwelling units per acre, 200 units
max
Building Height 60 feet maximum
Open Space 7% minimum
Lot Coverage 80% maximum
Building and Landscape Setbacks
North (Interior Lot Line) Minimum 5 feet
East (Interior Lot Line) Minimum 10 feet
South (Colter Street) Minimum 10 feet
West (7th Street) Minimum 15 feet
Streetscape Standards
7th Street Sidewalk width: 5 feet
Landscape Area:11 feet between back of
curb and sidewalk
Colter Street Sidewalk width: 5 feet
Landscape Area:4’-6” feet between back of
curb and sidewalk
7. Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth standards to activate two street frontages (7th Street and Colter
Street) with pedestrian-oriented design and street-facing residential units. It also
sets forth requirements to maximize the landscaping along these street frontages.
Page 393
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
The landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk and the building
setbacks will be planted with minimum 2-inch and 3-inch caliper trees, planted 25
feet on center or in equivalent groupings. Additionally, five shrubs per tree will be
provided, and live groundcover to provide 50% groundcover at maturity.
Furthermore, perimeter property lines not adjacent to public right-of-way shall be
landscaped with minimum 60% 2-inch and 40% 3-inch caliper trees planted 30 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings, in addition to five shrubs per tree and achieve
50% groundcover at maturity.
8. Design Guidelines
The PUD proposes enhanced design
guidelines to prioritize the pedestrian and
to ensure the building is compatible with
the surrounding area. The PUD sets forth
requirements for ground floor units with
private patio spaces to activate the street
frontage and requires an art element
visible from the public right-of-way. The
northwest and southwest corners will
incorporate different colors and building
materials to enhance visual interest.
Further, to break up the massing of the
west elevation, a projecting shade
Site Rendering, Source: PUD Narrative
element will be provided up to the third
floor.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
9. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development
supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.
10. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
Page 394
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
vibrant pedestrian places. The PUD includes enhanced shading standards to
reduce the urban heat island effect.
11. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The development will activate the street
frontages, provide detached sidewalks and provide enhanced landscaping and
shade along the sidewalks.
12. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
The proposal incorporates requirements for bicycle parking and amenities to
encourage multi-modal transportation.
13. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The PUD narrative states that recycling containers will be
provided on site.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. At the time this staff report was written, 1 letter in support and 72 letters of
opposition have been received, including a petition of opposition with 181
signatures. Concerns shared were regarding density, height, traffic, safety and
neighborhood compatibility.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Public Transit Department has requested that the developer construct a bus
stop pad on 7th Street. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
16. The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer dedicate a
sidewalk easement on 7th Street, submit a traffic impact study, fully fund a traffic
device at the intersection of 7th Street and Colter Street, and that all streets be
constructed with required improvements and comply with current ADA standards.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 through 6.
OTHER
Page 395
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
17. 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 8.
18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 9.
19. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. The project site is appropriately located along an arterial street, a planned bicycle
corridor, a bus route and adjacent to a bus stop.
2. The proposal will develop an underutilized site and provide additional housing
options within proximity to commercial and employment uses.
3. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and is
compatible in intensity and scale with recently approved projects near the subject
site.
4. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will facilitate
pedestrian-oriented design and promote a safer walking and bicycling environment.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Zola North Central PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped August 26, 2022, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:
Page 396
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
b. Page 11, D3: Parking, Section A. Vehicular standards: Update Item 1.
Resident and Visitor Parking (Minimum) to Efficiency Units: 1.3 spaces per
dwelling unit, 1-Bedroom Units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, 2-Bedroom
Units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
c. Page 11, D3: Parking, Section A. Vehicular standards: Add a sentence that
reads “A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be utilized
for visitor parking purposes.”
2. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the east side of 7th Street, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
4. The developer shall fully fund a traffic control device at the intersection of 7th
Street and Colter Street, as determined and approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation
identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted
until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. The developer shall construct a bus stop pad along northbound 7th Street. The
Bus stop pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be located from the intersection
of Colter Street according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 397
Staff Report: Z-27-22-6
September 2, 2022
9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Sarah Stockham
September 2, 2022
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped July 26, 2022
Conceptual Elevations date stamped July 26, 2022 (2 pages)
Zola North Central PUD development narrative date stamped August 26, 2022
Correspondence (101 pages)
Page 398
PAD-14* R-3 11TH ST
Z-192-70 C-O
MISSOURI AVE
C-O*
R1-10
QU
Z-67-79
C-O
ES
C-O Z-5-81
C-2
R1-10
R-3 R-O *
T
TA Z-105-81
IER
Z-18-99 DENTON LN
LA PLAZA CIR
RA
R1-10
DR
C-O *
PAD Z-4-82 VERMONT AVE
R-4 *
GEORGIA AVE
R1-6 C-2 * R-3
9TH ST R1-6
Z-43-96
Z-SP-10-82
7TH ST
OREGON AVE P-1
4TH ST R-4 10TH ST
Windsor Square
Neighborhood SPD 8TH PL
COLTER ST
C-2
OR ANGE DR
R1-6 C-2 SP*
R-3
HP
Z-SP-11-16
C-2 SP FERN DR
10TH PL
MEDLOC K DR HGT/WVR*
6T H ST Z-52-15 P-1
C-2 SP *
7 TH ST
Z-SP-24-06
C-2 C-2
R-5 8TH ST
SP *
PASADENA AVE Z-SP-24-06
C-2 SP * C-2 * P-1 C-2
C-2 SP *
Z-SP-24-06 Z-SP-24-06 Z-122-79
*
Z-338-82
I
Miles
Z-27-22
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.075 0.0375 0 0.075
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 16TH ST
SR 51
THOMAS RD
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
40TH ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
ZOM Living
APPLICANT'S NAME:
FROM:
C-2 ( 2.55 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. 5/12/2022
Z-27-22
DATE:
REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
2.55 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 19-29 H-8 TO: PUD ( 2.55 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 37 44
PUD 200 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-27-22.mxd
Page 399
PAD-14* R-3 11TH ST
Z-192-70 C-O
MISSOURI AVE
C-O*
R1-10
QU
Z-67-79
C-O
ES
C-O Z-5-81
C-2
R1-10
R-3 R-O *
T
TA Z-105-81
IER
Z-18-99 DENTON LN
LA PLAZA CIR
RA
R1-10
DR
C-O *
PAD Z-4-82 VERMONT AVE
R-4 *
GEORGIA AVE
R1-6 C-2 * R-3
9TH ST R1-6
Z-43-96
Z-SP-10-82
7TH ST
OREGON AVE P-1
4TH ST R-4 10TH ST
Windsor Square
Neighborhood SPD 8TH PL
COLTER ST
C-2
OR ANGE DR
R1-6 C-2 SP*
R-3
HP
Z-SP-11-16
C-2 SP FERN DR
10TH PL
MEDLOC K DR HGT/WVR*
6T H ST Z-52-15 P-1
C-2 SP *
7 TH ST
Z-SP-24-06
C-2 C-2
R-5 8TH ST
SP *
PASADENA AVE Z-SP-24-06
C-2 SP * C-2 * P-1 C-2
C-2 SP *
Z-SP-24-06 Z-SP-24-06 Z-122-79
*
Z-338-82
I
Miles
Z-27-22
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.075 0.0375 0 0.075
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 16TH ST
SR 51
THOMAS RD
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
40TH ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
ZOM Living
APPLICANT'S NAME:
FROM:
C-2 ( 2.55 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. 5/12/2022
Z-27-22
DATE:
REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
2.55 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 19-29 H-8 TO: PUD ( 2.55 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 37 44
PUD 200 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-27-22.mxd
Page 400
Page 401
#!(** * *
) **"* *&%*%$'*
Page 402
$")++
+
* ++#+ !+'&+&%(+
Page 403
$")++
+ +
* ++#+ !+'&+&%(+
From: Bill Saul
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Zola North Central MF
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 6:18:52 PM
Sarah
I am in support of this project for the following reasons:
1. Based on my research on the Developer, they have a proven track record of efficient and effective urban design,
quality construction, and environmentally sensitive method for energy saving engineering.
2. I live and work in the neighbor. My home is in The Windsor Square Historic neighborhood.
3. There is a ever present need for a increasing more housing throughout the US, more importantly right here in
Phoenix, AZ.
4. Since, we should encourage development on major arterial roads close to additional highway feeders( ie) The 51
Highway.
5. Phoenix and AZ has the opportunity to learn from many mistakes of other states and cities in major growth area in
the Western part of the country.
6. I’m concerned for AZ based on some new legislation happening in other parts of the country which propose
having more opportunities to build MF in neighbor's and not major traffic roads for business and business. Please
take the time to read and review the introduced House Bill 2674. This is not good for us the neighbors. I encourage a
positive Compromise.
Best regards.
Bill Saul
Page 404
From: Jerrye (Jeraldine) Cole, A sBR, GRI
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Property NE corner of 7th Street and Colter St., Phoenix
Date: Saturday, May 28, 2022 10:58:54 AM
I am concerned about the proposed 200-apartment building on the NE corner of Colter St and 7th St.
This appears to be vert tight space for 200 units with little space for outdoor activity. More importantly this
area is already congested with on-street parking on Colter Street and on 8th Place. If I counted correctly
the plan propose 54 parking spaces on 4 levels for a total of 216 That is hardly more than 1 space per
unit, or 1 space per unit and 16 spaces for guests. This area already has heavy (and fast) traffic.
While I approve of a transition to more pedestrian-movement, I don't believe we are ready for such tight
habitats with little space and still limited retail and service businesses close-by.
I live just north of this proposed apartment building and walk the area each morning. I fear this will
infringe upon my movement and safety in the area; I am a 79-year-old citizen of Phoenix and moved from
Moon Valley to be able to remain independent should I become unable to drive. I support less
dependence on personal vehicles but don't believe we can safely accommodate this many units on such
a small parcel..
Jeraldine Cole
5303 N 7th St. #124
Phoenix, AZ 85014
jerryeco@aol.com
(602)743-7276 Cell
Page 405
From: Sue Rhoads
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Additional Comments re: Zola Z-27-22-6
Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 8:37:45 AM
Zola Z-27-22-6-Rezoning from C-2 to PUD: I wish to join the Windsor Square opposition to
this 5 story, balconies along 7th Street, enhancement to the traffic issues of 7th Street
and of uncontrolled drive through traffic on Colter from 7th Street to Central.
1. Rezoning from C-2 to PUD WILL NOT benefit the neighboring residential properties
in any way and in fact will be detrimental to the value of the residential property at the
East and West of this proposed project.
2, The increase from 2 to 5 stories will increase the view and presence of this property as an
eye sore including cluttered patios, for lease banners, and street parking.
3. Per this developer's admission during the 5/11/2022 Neighborhood Meeting, they can not
control additional traffic issues impacting Windsor Square and the neighborhood to the East
as a result of this high density development. Their comment was that they "can not control
bad behavior" of apartment residence cutting through Windsor Square (a do not enter Colter St
issue).
4. 7th Street traffic prior to and will again be soon after COVID is already a traffic nightmare
coming from the north valley. Vehicles pulling out of this projected high density project going
south will increase accidents as a result of the suicide lane during rush hours.
5. The parking garage allows for 1.31 per unit parking. That means the overage will end up on
the streets where 3 other apartment complexes in the area share---and the overage from the
east side of Colter could in fact end up in the Windsor Square area. This high density project
will create a parking nightmare.
6. Balconies overlooking 7th Street is an absolute safety issue. The average net square
footage of 794 means the patios can be used as storage space, not to mention the noise that
will project to Windsor Square. I would think the city would be concerned with the potential
of debris being hurled on to 7th Street traffic by children or even adults displaying "bad
behavior". The property south of Camelback does not have balconies along 7th Street for a
good reason.
Rezoning this property from C-2 to PUD is a big mistake!! Wrong density project for
this corner-KEEP THE CURRENT ZONING!!
Sue Rhoads
5129 N. 6th Street (view of this project)
(602) 531-1066
Page 406
From: dwlaw
To: Council District 4; Sarah Stockham
Cc: nwood@swlaw.com; Tom Hilditch
Subject: Rezoning Case #Z-27-22-6
Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:52:13 AM
Dear Councilwoman Pastor and Ms. Stockham (on behalf of the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee):
I respond to the mailed notice of the North Central Zola Zoning Application (NE corner
of E. Colter St. and N. 7th St.) and would like to register my opposition to the request
for rezoning as a PUD. I reside approximately 2 blocks away as the bird flies, in the
Windsor Square Historic District. This site's existing zoning has been effective, the
site has been well-used and fits well within the N. 7th Street Corridor adjacent to the
Windsor Square Historic District. Prior to this application, the City has consistently
kept buildings exceeding the existing C-2 zoning height to areas south of Camelback
Road, and focused along the North Central and the Light Rail, TOD corridor. This
applicant has stated no reasons to justify its need for a zoning change to PUD.
The City's PUD process states the PUD "zoning designation [is] intended to create a
built environment superior to that
which is accomplished through conventional zoning." The proposed application does
not create superior zoning and therefore should be denied.
The applicant states that "new retail and restaurant uses in the area" make its 5-story
proposal attractive for the neighborhood. Contrary to the applicant's statement, "the
availability of housing has remained relatively limited" is untruthful. The local
businesses are thriving in the current state, albeit dealing with serious traffic and
parking problems. The existing area is surrounded by multi-family. I invite you to
drive up and down West Camelback, just south of East Camelback on N. 7th Street,
on North Central, along the Light Rail corridor, the developments south of Camelback
near N. 12th Street and near N. 24th Street. Many, many new multi-family sites with
high denstiy have recently been located or are being built in those more feasible
areas.
Contrary to the applicant's assertion, the site is not "near" (or at least not "near"
enough) the TOD zoned area to justify a drastic reduction in its parking spaces,
setbacks, and its easement areas. Neighbors do not walk 9-10 long blocks to get to
Light Rail Transit. The site design is not attractive, shows no height variations, shows
no family or playground common areas for children.
Based on my many years serving on the Alhambra Village Planning committee, I
understood that our N. 7th Street to N. 7th Avenue corridor already was experiencing
serious adverse impacts on the infrastructure - neighborhood parks, roads, traffic,
sewer lines, etc. There are plenty of empty lots in the "real TOD" zoned area where
this applicant would fit. It simply did not want to pay the price for those already-zoned
appropriate sites. This application on this site is not a good fit, let alone a superior fit
as PUD intends.
Page 407
Also, please consider, in addition to the far inadequate parking for the site:
The heat island effect. See recent ABC15 news story about mitigating heat
island effects: https://www.abc15.com/weather/impact-earth/how-tempe-helps-
cool-our-heat-island [abc15.com] Has this applicant added to the severe heat of
our area or done anything significant to mitigate the heat?
Does the applicant provide noise mitigation from windows and balconies that
face N. 7th Street? Our Windsor Square area has dealt with severe noise of
outdoor dining and music that cause disturbances in our Historic District due to
the air flow patterns. These impacts should be considered, especially if a 2, 3,
or even 5 story height would make the sound travel farther. How will the noise
impact the neighboring 1 and 2-story condos and apartments?
Phoenix City Council is focused on reducing traffic accidents and deaths but this
application would adversely impact traffic, traffic flow (entrance and exit) near
one of the metro area's worst traffic intersections at N. 7th St. and E.
Camelback Rd. See https://www.12news.com/article/traffic/city-of-phoenix-
takes-measures-to-make-valley-intersections-safer-after-startling-report/75-
f9a4075e-760b-44ca-944b-13143d4eccf1 [12news.com]
Maricopa Association of Governments listed the intersection at N. 7th St. and E.
Camelback Rd. as the 21st worst intersection in the area.
https://www.azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/TSC_2017-04-18_List-of-Top-
100-Intersections-Ranked-by-Crash-Risk.pdf?ver=2021-01-27-083723-227
[azmag.gov] Has the City performed a traffic and road study to assess the
impacts of this number of additional residents and vehicles?
Has this application made any efforts to provide increased access for electric
vehicles, as expected in the near future? That is not shown in its application.
With the severe lack of nearby neighborhood playgrounds and parks, has this
applicant provided sufficient playground and family outdoor resources other
than a small pool and commons area?
Have the infrastructure needs been evaluated? Sewer, water, etc.
I hope you will act to deny this application as it is currently presented. Thank you for
your consideration. Please contact me, if you have any question.
Suzanne Dohrer
346 E. Medlock Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 408
From: Larry Whitesell
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Mike Freret; Sandy Gurnow; Mary Crozier; Jackie Rich; Shelly Dunlop
Subject: Submission for Camelback East VPC Meeting 7 June 2022
Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:58:36 AM
Attachments: 9 May Meeting Summary email to Snell & Wilmer.pdf
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Committee -
Please consider the following items as you learn about the Zola North Central PUD, Item #3,
Case ZA-27-22-6.
I was among a group of neighborhood leaders who met with the developer's legal team, I
attended the virtual neighborhood meeting, and I reviewed all of the narratives submitted to
the Zoning Department as well as feedback from the Zoning Department to the developer.
A multi-family development at the subject site is possible "by right" with the current C-2
zoning. However, the details are problematic of the proposed project using a PUD zoning
designation.
First and foremost, the project as proposed is not supported by Zoning Department staff. The
written documentation of the the pre-application meeting that took place on 1 February, 2022,
states the following concerns:
Not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation
Additional discussion needed regarding proposed height and density given the land use
pattern and recent approvals in the surrounding area
Additional discussion required regarding driveway configuration and circulation pattern
Concerns regarding interface with 7th Street, proposed streetscape landscaping, and
efforts to ensure viable landscaping standards along street facing perimeters
I am in agreement with each of these items. The developer has not made any revisions to the
project subsequent to these concerns.
Attached is a summary of the meeting that several neighborhood leaders had with the legal
team. These items remain to be addressed.
Hopefully you share our goal to ensure that any development on the subject site is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods as well as providing the developer with a reasonable
return on investment. We are committed to continuing good faith discussions with the
developer and their legal team as this application continues through the hearing process.
Thank you for your careful consideration of the residents' input on this application.
Larry Whitesell, Co-chair
the PEAK NA
602-370-8453
Page 409
6/6/22, 11:25 AM Gmail - Re: Draft of email to Snell & Wilmer
Larry Whitesell
Re: Draft of email to Snell & Wilmer
Larry Whitesell
Draft
Nick, Noel, and Tracey,
Thank you for meeting with us on Monday to discuss the proposed PUD at 7th Street and Colter (and the other zoning
issues). Naturally, we would have liked to discuss this several months ago with you, but appreciated the opportunity to
meet at Elly’s. We have found great success and collaboration with developers when we are involved early on in the
project’s design.
In summary, we support appropriate development of this parcel. However, our concerns are the following:
1. Density, Height. This proposed apartment complex is very similar to one you would see downtown. North Central is a
completely different neighborhood, as evidenced by the buildings along 7th Street. Lower profile heights, larger setbacks,
dense foliage are the characteristics of our area. Having such a looming, boxy structure so close to 7th Ave. is clearly out
of character. We understand the architect is from Louisiana and therefore, is probably unfamiliar with the open view
corridors, agrarian nature of uptown Phoenix. The five stories is excessive when all the other apartments in the area are
two stories. Currently under C-2 zoning, we believe the maximum height is 48’?
2. Setbacks and Landscaping. As we all agree, 7th Street is an unsafe, non-walkable area, which is unfortunate due to all
the restaurants and amenities nearby. We would like to see dense planting and a wider detached sidewalk/landscaped
area to put more distance between pedestrians and the speeding cars on 7th St. We are not supportive of 0 setbacks
either.
3. Egress. There is concern with the only access point being on Colter. If you recall, we had the same arguments with the
7th St. and Marlette project, as the neighborhood predicted parking congestion on Marlette. The developer assured us
that they had plenty of parking in the parking garage, however, today, the neighbors are faced with parking congestion on
Marlette, creating dangerous driving issues. Hopefully, we can learn from these lessons as once the project is finished,
the neighborhood is stuck with problems while everyone else is happily skipping to the bank. What are the options for
egress on 7th St?
4. Heat Factor. Creating such a large project with little to no landscaping will definitely affect the heat in our neighborhood.
We have one of the largest tree canopies in the City and have cooler temperatures as a result. What can be done to
assure this project will be more environmentally compatible?
5. The location of the pool as proposed will be in shade all the time. Is it possible to put some of the amenities elsewhere
to create more planted outdoor space?
6. We do not want WU Codes applied to this project, as this is not in a WU Code location.
As we mentioned at the meeting, we worked closely with Alliance at 5727 N. 7th Street. They increased the setbacks
from 7th St, designed a 30 foot height along 7th St, and tapered down the east side of the structure to blend in with the
adjacent neighbors. In addition, they put townhouses along the side road to minimize their impact. We would love to see
some of those design elements incorporated into this proposed PUD.
PUDs should be superior projects and we hope that we can work with you and the developer to ensure this No. Central
apartment complex is in keeping with the character and integrity of our neighborhood.
Page 410
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ik=02f40cb15d&view=pt&search=query&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar9121892794780380774&dsqt=1&simpl=%23msg-f… 1/1
From: Susan Groff
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 4
Subject: Oppose #ZA-27-22-6
Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:37:54 AM
Dear Vice Mayor Laura Pastor and Ms. Sarah Stockham (on behalf of the Camelback East Village
Planning Committee),
The City of Phoenix has established zoning standards compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods. Zola developers need to comply with the existing standards (C-2, R-3). Higher
density runs counter to the goals of the Windsor Square Special Planning District (SPD) which is
in closer proximity to this project than Transit Overlay Districts (TOD) 4 or 1. TOD 4 is one mile to
the east at 16th St and the nearest light rail station at Camelback/ Central Ave is a 19-minute one-
mile walk or .9 mi if residents cut through our neighborhood.
Traffic and Circulation
From 2016-2020, there were 171 crashes at 7th St and Camelback.
Students from the Humanities and Sciences High School at Colter and 7th St unsuccessfully
petitioned the city for a pedestrian crossing signal. They stated that they felt unsafe crossing 7th
St at Colter.
The developer requests parking reductions because transportation alternatives exist. It is unlikely
that residents will walk 19 minutes to the light rail especially during our warmer months. There’s
no guarantee that they would use Uber and Lift. Crossing 7th St to get to the bus stop is difficult
and dangerous.
Special Planning District Conservation Plan
Approving a 5-story building would create a precedent for taller buildings north of Camelback
looming over single family homes and lower-height, lighter-density apartments.
It should come as no surprise that Windsor Square residents will consistently oppose zoning
upgrades on its periphery. This is clearly stated in the Windsor Square Neighborhood
Conservation Plan.
Sincerely,
Susan Groff
5105 N 6th St
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 411
From: peggy entofyuma.com
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Z-27-22 questions/comments
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:57:03 PM
Hello Sarah,
We spoke yesterday about Camelback East Apartment.
Here is my take on the project give that I own two properties vey close to Colter/8th Place.
5321 N 8th Place
830 E Fern St S,
I. The density of the complex may put a severe strain on the schools in the district that are
already over- crowded.
2.Taffic flow although estimated at 60% of vehicles leaving will go west on Colter is incorrect.
Who would pull through multiple lanes of traffic to turn left into it? Consider accident
potential.
Did the engineer take into consideration the various traffic patterns which occur during rush
hour on 7th St?
3. If traffic departing the complex turns east, to exit. then they must go down 8th Place south
where there already is congestion due mostly to activity from auto dealerships. If traffic turns
north on 8th Place heading toward Missouri, long line traffic jams are forseen, in my opinion.
Traffic on 8th Place intersection at Missouri already uses the city streets for parking. The same
holds true for the comple south of the proposed complex on Colter. The overflow parking
frequently blocks the street now on Colter.
4,The small houses on Colter East of 8th Place are at risk for a much greater traffic
experience. Most have small children that cannot help playing near the road. This is another
reason for my request for less density and for some consideration for the safety and
continuing good mental health, physical well being of neighbors.
Thank you for listening to these concerns of a property owner
Peggy Driscoll
Page 412
To: Phoenix City Councilwoman Laura Pastor
Sarah Stockham (Camelback East Village Planning Committee)
In regards to the rezoning proposal for the northeast corner of E. Colter Street and N. 7th Street
(Zola North Central case No. z-27-22-6)
This is in response to the North Central Zola Zoning Application (NE corner of E. Colter St. and
N. 7th St.). I would like to register my opposition to the request for rezoning from C2 to PUD.
We attended in person the Windsor Square neighborhood board meeting of June 2, and
remotely the Camelback East village meeting of June 7. Both meetings had extensive discussions
regarding the proposed development and zoning change.
In 1988, my wife Sally and I purchased our home at 315 E. Medlock Drive, Phoenix, AZ, where
we have lived since. This was shortly after Governor Symington had declared the Paradise
Parkway “dead” and instructed ADOT to divest themselves of properties bought in anticipation
of the Parkway’s construction. This was also before designation of the Windsor Square Historic
District. When we bought the property, we anticipated that the neighborhood and surrounding
amenities would improve, and that our investment would be safe from outside encroachment. In
other words, we trusted the city to be conservative in its zoning, to reject inappropriate zoning
change requests, and to sensibly direct development adjacent to existing residential
neighborhoods. So far, the city has protected Windsor Square neighborhood from encroachment
of inappropriate uses.
This site's existing zoning of C2 has been effective, the site has been well-used and fits well
within the N. 7th Street Corridor adjacent to the Windsor Square Historic District. This
applicant has stated no reasons to justify its need for a zoning change from C2 to PUD.
1. Height: The requested change in zoning from C2 to PUD, as described in application, will
double C2 height requirements from a maximum of “2 stories and 30'” to 60’ (page 21).
Prior to this application, the City has consistently kept buildings exceeding the existing
C-2 zoning height to areas south of Camelback Road, thus preserving the existing
character of the neighborhoods north of Camelback. Buildings near the site are all equal
to or less than 30’ in height.
As proposed, the change in zoning would result in a building conspicuous in height, out
of place, and incongruent with existing structures along this reach of N. 7th Street. At the
Camelback East village meeting, the developer stated, “He cannot make any money with
less height.” This appears to be the sole justification for a requesting a building height
twice as high as existing.
2. Density: The request changing zoning would increase the residential density standards in
C2 from “Minimum 14.5 du/acre” to 120 du/acre. (305 dwelling units [page 20] divided
by 2.55 acres [page 5]). For comparison, Seventh apartments (built in 1970) southeast of
E. Colter and N. 7th St. have approximately 57 du/acre, Vela on Camelback (built ca.
2019), south of Camelback on 7th Street, has approximately 76 du/acre.
As proposed, the requested change in zoning would permit a significant departure from
densities of existing multi-family dwellings along N. 7th Street.
Page 413
3. Traffic: North 7th Street is a six-lane arterial road with posted speeds of 35 mph between
McDowell Road and Missouri Avenue, 40 mph between Missouri Avenue and Butler
Drive, and 35 mph between Butler Drive and Dunlap Avenue. The roadway consists of
two southbound lanes, three northbound lanes, and a reversible lane. The reversible lane
operates from McDowell Road to Dunlap Avenue. When the reversible lane is not in
operation, the lane is used as a two-way left turn lane. Average daily traffic on N. 7th
Street is between 46,000 and 65,000 vehicles per day. There are no pull-out bus bays on
N. 7th Street between E. Camelback Road and E. Missouri Avenue, thus traffic is blocked
on one lane when buses are stopped.
The proposal estimates there would be 38 trips out during the morning peak hour and 49
trips during the afternoon peak hour (page 18). This seems unrealistically low given that
the proposed building would have 200-300 dwelling units. The report identifies neither
the time of the morning nor the evening peak hour. The proposal does not address how
ingress and egress to/from the development would affect traffic volume or safety on N.
7th Street or E. Colter Street.
Currently, E. Colter Street from N. 7th Street to N. 8th place is lined with parked vehicles
on the north side of the street (the south side has parking restrictions). The proposal
would eliminate much, if not all, of that street parking. It does not address where
vehicles without access to the parking garage would park.
The city is studying ways to make Colter Street more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly
and safer. The proposal does not address this study.
The requested change in zoning would significantly increase traffic volume on N. 7th
Street just north of its very dangerous intersection with E. Camelback, and likely
contribute to decreased safety for vehicles, buses, and pedestrians on N. 7th Street and
adjacent streets.
4. Infrastructure: The requested change in zoning does not address infrastructure (water
and sewer) in the vicinity. The proposal makes casual reference to public water and
sewer infrastructure by stating that “…is understood to be of sufficient depth and
capacity to service the proposed development.”
There are no reports cited to justify what “understood” or “sufficient” mean. What does
“depth” have to do with anything? Is there an analysis by the fire department that
assures that gallons/minute or pressure/square inch are sufficient?
The requested change in zoning is neither justified nor supported by data.
5. Inconsistencies within the proposal.
Throughout the proposal, references to “luxury” are prevalent, but the proposal
does not define what elements would contribute to “luxury” conditions.
Amenities are not defined or are only presented as suggestions. Parking for
vehicles is inadequate. Parking for bicycles is inadequate. Recycling is only
addressed in passing. Number of dwelling units is contradictory and varies
between 194 dwelling units (page 8) and 305 dwelling units (page 20).
The proposal contradicts itself by first stating that current development of the
site and nearby is antiquated and does not meet the needs of the surrounding
Page 414
community. Yet it also acknowledges that the area is economically vibrant with
many repurposed buildings.
The table addressing Required Vehicle Spaces (page 20) shows that 233 one-
bedroom units will need 128.1 spaces at 1.05 spaces per unit (page 20). Simple
math shows that 233 units times 1.05 vehicle spaces per unit would require 244.7
vehicle spaces.
6. The proposal does not address how it will contribute to Phoenix’s efforts to reduce the
“heat island” effect. How will changing zoning mitigate the heat island effect?
7. The proposal does not address whether charging stations for electric vehicles will be
provided.
8. There are innumerable other issues in the proposal that should be addressed before a
zoning change can be considered.
The proposal is filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, unsupported statements, and
deceptions. I urge you to reject this ill-considered proposal for a zoning change until it can be
fully analyzed, and a responsible proposal offered. I also urge you to encourage the proponent to
involve adjacent neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me, if you have any questions.
Jerome Stefferud
Page 415
From: dawn vaccaro
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: council.district6@phoenix.gov
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2022 11:08:25 AM
I am opposed to adding more apartments or condos. The building is perfectly fine and can be
used for something else. We don't need anymore overpriced apartments or condos. The
person who came to my door was rude. There needs to be a ceiling on apartments. The rent
keeps going up and up with no improvements to the apartments. We have too many
homeless people as it is and you are adding even more to the streets.
Page 416
From: Nellessen-Jones, Victoria (Enabling Solutions)
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC; "victoriaj0405@outlook.com"
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, July 29, 2022 12:33:34 PM
Dear Chairman and Camelback East VPC Members:
While I have already voiced my concerns to the developers about the Zola North Central apartment project going in at 7th Street and Colter, I am strongly opposed to any
rezoning of our area. This is a relatively quiet neighborhood with single and small multi-family living. A large apartment complex in the area will do nothing but increase
traffic and noise on an over-burdened Colter which is already over used as a cut-through street for Camelback. Speeding and on-street parking is a major issue on Colter,
along with the BMW and Lexus dealerships allowing their customers and service techs to use our streets to test drive cars.
Any new multi-family living should be limited to two levels with entry access to the property on 7th Street only. No above ground parking garage should be allowed which
would impact private homes’ safety and privacy, and trash collection should only be made accessible near the 7th Street side, not near the already established homes
near the same property line.
There is no need for a new multi-level apartment complex to be placed into this neighborhood. Something like the Zola North Central project would be better placed
further south in the downtown corridor.
Thank you for your consideration.
VICTORIA JONES
Senior Legal Assistant to Kristin L. Groman & Douglas H. Fitch
Law Offices of Linnsey M. Amores
victoria.nellessen-jones@thehartford.com
Our office is paperless and we respectfully request that all correspondence or document production be sent electronically or on CD/flash drive where possible. Thank you for your cooperation.
******************************************************************************************************
This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies.
******************************************************************************************************
Page 417
From: Linda Choplin
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central PUD
Date: Saturday, July 30, 2022 12:49:49 PM
Dear Chairman and Camelback East VPC Members,
My name is Linda Choplin, I am a homeowner in the area and I highly oppose Zola North proposal.
For the following reason:
1. It would cause the area to deteriorate.
2. It will create hazardous driving conditions down Colter from 7th Street to 10Th Street. Such as
parking/driving nightmare going down Colter St.
3. It will make it more difficult to turn off of Colter St. on to North/South on 7th Street.
4. It will also cause cars to take sides streets and will disturb the area neighborhoods and create
a more dangerous streets for the kids that play in the area.
5. There is already issues with car dealerships taking the side streets mainly going East/West
down Colter St from 7th Street to 10th Street..
6. There is also issues with semi trucks with the 53” trailer/car Trailer attached that have been
continuously going East/West down Colter St from 7th Street to 10th Street which is a
residential street.
Regards,
Linda Choplin
Page 418
From: Vacation Sensei
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC; Sandy Grunow HOA; Lyndon Mako Hara CSP
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, July 30, 2022 5:33:08 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
Please accept this notice of my/our opposition to the planned development of Zola North
Central PUD.
Please message me for any questions regarding the reasons for my opposition.
Sincerely,
Lyndon M. Hara
Chandra L. Hara
736 E Rose Lane
Phoenix AZ 85014
Page 419
From: Amy Conner
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:06:59 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
By way of this email, I’m opposing the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
I’m a resident of Windsor Square just West of 7th street and Colter. My home sits on Colter
and I’m very much against this development for many reasons. Colter already has cut
throughs from 7th street to Central and Central to 7th street even though one-way signs
and do not enter instructs drivers to not enter onto Colter and Central but they do anyway
and do not adhere to the posted speed limit signs. By putting a high-rise multi-resident
building on that corner will only increase the traffic coming down Colter street. I also don’t
agree with the facade of the building as it does not fit for the surrounding historical
neighborhoods. I believe very much this will have a very negative impact on my
neighborhood and therefore am against this proposed development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Conner
217 E. Colter Street
Page 420
From: johndehn10@gmail.com
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 5:54:25 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I am writing this email in opposition of the proposed Zola development on 7th St and Colter. I
live just a few houses away from this site and I do not believe the proposed zoning and
structure is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. Windsor Square already
experiences high levels of speeding and cut-through traffic from non-local drivers which I
believe will only increase, especially on my street, with a higher density development along 7th
street and Colter. I’m not opposed to a new development going into this site, but I am strongly
opposed to changing the zoning classification to allow the height, density and setbacks
proposed by the developer.
John & Alyse Dehn
420 E Oregon Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 421
From: Jen Delgado
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:56:51 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter
from C-2 to PUD. My family and I live in the Windsor Square Historic District on the west side of 7th
St, and have lived in this neighborhood for 18 years. The change in zoning, and this proposed
development, would have a material negative impact on our neighborhood and surrounding area.
We already have an issue with cars zooming down Oregon Ave and endangering the large number of
kids on our street. This development would only exacerbate the problem. Additionally, the proposed
setbacks, as well as the height and density, of the proposed development are out of character with
our surrounding area and the City’s General Plan adopted in 2015.
I have seen the proposed architectural design of the development, and quite frankly, it looks like
every other big box apartment development going up at the moment. I think you will agree that the
Central/Camelback corridors and surrounding neighborhoods are unique, and the area deserves
thoughtful and aesthetically pleasing development so that it continues to be a place of pride for our
city. This proposed development will not accomplish that. I urge you to reject this developer’s
application for rezoning and require it to build within the current zoning allowance.
Thank you,
Jennifer Delgado
Page 422
From: Terry Severn
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: coucil.district.6#phoenix.gov
Date: Thursday, August 4, 2022 12:39:53 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camekback East VPC Members
I am opposed to the proposed PUD at 7th St and Colter.
I live east of this site on Colter Street. My most pressing concern is the overwhelming traffic
increase along Colter Street that this project will cause.
200 units that empty onto Colter Street - 239 (proposal estimate) cars, plus perhaps an
additional 25 to 50 cars that will be forced onto parking along the streets east of the PUD. If
40% of those cars (proposal estimate) travel east on Colter, that is nearly 100 cars traveling
through my neighborhood each morning and evening that are not now traveling that route.
What plan is there to prevent this overwhelming traffic change? Will the unit rental
agreements enforce the vehicle 'allowances' in your plan to prevent excessive street parking?
Will the PUD leave units empty so as not to exceed the 239 vehicles anticipated? Will the City
block the traffic from these units from traveling east onto Colter into the neighborhood from
the property?
Just as guests to my property cannot expect to park in the parking garage for this PUD, any
PUD residents and guests should not be expected to park along Colter. I think the actual car
parking requirements of residents and their guests should be required to be maintained at or
below the 239 figure you are using; If they are approved for 1.8 cars per unit, are they
prepared to ensure that number is not exceeded even if it means units must remain unleased to
meet that estimate? The surrounding neighborhood should not have to bear the parking burden
for some of the PUD dwellers; the PUD should be required to contain all of it's dwellers actual
parking needs on it's own property.
A rep from the builder came to my house and he indicated there would be NO ingress/egress
onto Colter, all traffic would enter and exit directly onto 7th Street. That would have greatly
reduced the possibility of overwhelming traffic expansion through my neighborhood I suspect
there are some persons that signed the petition of approval with that caveat in mind. Perhaps
7th Street ingress/egress was the plan at that time? Perhaps that was incorrect information
given to signers? If either of these are true, the petition signatures would be invalid now.
I am not opposed to PUDs in general, provided that the surrounding neighborhoods are given a
fair shake. This plan is not a fair shake.
I thank you for your time and hope you will address this real issue with the respect for our
neighborhood that it is due.
Sincerely,
Terry Severn
home owner
Page 423
From: Donna Swan
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: 2-27-22–6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 10:13:15 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
I’m writing to state my opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-
2 to PUD. My concerns regarding the proposed change are listed below.
1) It looks to me that this area is constantly chipping away at the City’s General Plan to the
detriment of our community.
2) Recently an exception was granted at 8th Place and Camerback that resulted in actually
eliminating a neighborhood road.
3) Forcing more parking and traffic onto Colter with an oversized and over populated complex
without adequate guest parking will add to the overcrowding of Colter and the neighborhood.
4) This type of development is better suited for development south of Camelback.
Donna Swan
822 E Fern Dr North
Page 424
From: Hugh Knoell
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Cc: mikefreret@gmail.com; info@ncpha.org; thepeakna@gmail.com; phxmidcenturymodernna@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central Zoning
Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 10:55:23 AM
Ms. Stockman and all,
As a neighbor, I have looked at this proposal over recent weeks, visited the property several times
and join the Windsor Special Planning District, the North Central HOA and the Murphy Trail Estates
Neighborhood Association, in opposition.
My observation is that the drawings and site development data belie the buzz words in the
marketing verbiage. Although a more elegant design than the monster just south of Camelback on
the same side of 7th Street (e.g., a better streetscape by the landscape architect), it will have similar
negative impacts: too heavy in scale, too dense, too much traffic, inappropriate for the site.
Contrary to the razzle-dazzle about “enhancing the neighborhood”, “community”, “housing
diversity” and “sustainability”, it looks in every aspect to be a profit-driven enterprise to maximize
the number of units. It is not compatible with the context. It will undermine the long term efforts of
historic preservation in the area, not enhance them. It will create more vehicular congestion to
endanger citizens on an already overloaded, high speed 7th St. It will increase the cut-through traffic
through Windsor Square and east along the Colter area.
Will adjacent residents appreciate the promise to “further the success of the local retail and
restaurant businesses”? Do the businesses across 7th Street, non-conforming but grandfathered,
need to be further pumped up to produce more noise and nighttime activity that keep the Windsor
Square homes worried at night? What is the “pedestrian experience” noted? Is there not an option
to maintain, include and repurpose the existing building?
If the City cares about neighborhoods, community and sustainability, it should keep the parameters
of existing zoning and respect the goals of village planning—not submit to lawyer games
reinterpreting them.
Hugh Knoell, Architect LEED-AP
303 East Georgia Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 425
From: Marcia Dziobak
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 11:58:53 AM
Dear Committe Members,
I would like to voice my OPPOSITION to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from
C-2 to PUD.
Originally, I did sign the petition but would like to rescind my signature. After becoming more
informed about the project, I feel it will negatively impact my neighborhood. I have been in my
residence for 28 years and would do not want to see more multistory / multifamily
developments taking over our residential area.
Please don't allow this zoning request to proceed.
Thank-you for your consideration.
Marcia Dziobak
1002 E. Georgia Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Page 426
From: Belinda Penrose
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 9:29:35 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
Our family has lived in Windsor Square, now the Windsor Square Historic District for over
45 years. We have seen a lot happen in this city in those years, and the changes have not
all been for the better. Traffic, congestion and economic inflation and insecurity have all
increased significantly. Phoenicians as a whole face these issues and more, especially in
these days post-Covid. One thing that has improved over that time is the quality of life here
in Windsor Square, the neighborhood we call home.
As a neighborhood, we have successfully maintained our character as a close-knit and
vibrant community. We are involved, politically and socially active, and as a group we are
interested in maintaining this highly desirable neighborhood as a refuge from crime, blight
and the declining number of single family home neighborhoods.
We are also aware of the need for affordable housing in Phoenix and are not
unsympathetic to that need, especially as housing costs and property values continue to
soar. However, even consider this housing deficit, as long-term residents who will be
directly impacted, we adamantly oppose the proposed rezoning of the property at 7th St
and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
This development as proposed will negatively impact Windsor Square by:
Exacerbating the current over-burdened traffic on 7th St., with a concomitant and
significant potential for additional traffic collisions during the rush hour use of the
reverse-lane traffic pattern
Encourage cut-through traffic on Colter St. inside Windsor Square, which is an
ongoing problem with significant impact on the safety of our residents
The setbacks as proposed are out of character for the neighborhoods north of
Camelback and are outside the City's General Plan adopted in 2015
The proposed height being 59' and the extremely high density of 80% lot coverage
are also out of alignment with the City's General Plan
194 proposed units would bring a density and congestion out of character with the
area which is predominantly single-family residential and/or low-density rental units
There is inadequate planned parking (just 1.05 spaces per bedroom) which will likely
lead to overflow parking on Colter St. adjacent to the development negatively
impacting the current residents on Colter St.
These concerns among others, lead us to ask you to join us in opposing the proposed
zoning change and ensure that any development at this lot be required to adhere to the
existing zoning regulations.
Very Sincerely,
Belinda and Tim Penrose
Page 427
540 E. Colter St.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 428
From: Kurt Goering
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 7:35:11 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
I live in and work in the area near this proposed development. I oppose the
rezoning of the property at 7th Street and Colter from C-2 to PUD.
Building a 5-story housing complex in this area is inconsistent with the heights of
other buildings in the surrounding area. Traffic in the areas abutting this complex
already is very congested, particularly during rush hour given 7th Street's use as a
major arterial, without adding more density. Surrounding properties with lower
heights will be negatively impacted; when you travel down 7th Street you typically
have a nice view corridor which some two story buildings have distracted from but
a 5 story complex within 15 feet of 7th Street will clearly distract from the
neighborhood and negatively affect it. This project appears to fit more
appropriately to the south of Camelback Road, where taller structures already are in
place rather than allow such tall buildings to negatively impact neighborhoods
which have shorter buildings in keeping with the City Code. I fear that residents in
North Central will start fleeing to other parts of the Valley if this kind of
development continues to occur, and a very special residential area will be ruined.
My understanding is that the developer and its legal team have ignored our
neighborhood association's feedback, and have refused to revise the design to be
more in keeping with our beautiful North Central neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of my strenuous objection.
Kurt A. Goering
Work Address: 1118 East Missouri Avenue, Suite B1, Phoenix, AZ 85014
Home Address: 529 West Lawrence Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85013
--
Kurt A. Goering
Kurt A. Goering, P.C.
1118 East Missouri Avenue, #B1
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
602-340-1010
FAX 602-230-2956
CAUTION: ALL OF THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED IN THIS ELECTRONIC
MAIL COMMUNICATION IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL,
PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, AND/OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM
Page 429
DISCLOSURE, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL COMMUNICATION TO THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ANY READING, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE
INFORMATION TRANSMITTED IN THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY
ELECTRONIC MAIL (KAGOERING@GMAIL.COM), OR BY TELEPHONE (602-340-
1010), AND DELETE THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
Page 430
From: MURRAY HOLLENBERG
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22 6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 5:57:28 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I am opposed to the rezoning of the property at 7th Street and Colter.
The current zoning allows up to 17 units per acre.
The proposed PVD is requesting 78.50 units per acre.
This is not in keeping with our beautiful North Central neighborhood.
Please adhere to the current zoning.
Thank you.
Nancy Hollenberg
6032 North 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013
Page 431
From: RC
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 3:18:13 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members -
RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
We oppose the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
After learning more about the proposed apartments, we realize the petition circulators
misrepresented the negative impact on my neighborhood.
Rebecca Ciscel
104 W Missouri
Page 432
From: Ryan Ewing
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 4:05:30 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East Village Planning Committee,
I am among the third generation of my family to live in Phoenix. As a native Phoenician, and
knowing my family’s deep local history since 1926, I am writing to oppose the Zola North
Central project. My home is located only 375 feet from this proposed development.
This project is not compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhoods or character of
North Central Phoenix; specifically, the height, density, and setbacks are uncharacteristic of
the area.
I am not opposed to development in the area. I am sensitive to the unmet housing needs across
the Valley. However, as a former neighborhood leader, I believe that partnership with
surrounding communities is essential for any project. In this case, the developer has had
limited engagement with neighborhoods and appears to be moving forward without
responding to community input.
The developer is not working in good faith to develop a project that is compatible, cohesive,
and respectful of the area. The current C2 zoning does not prohibit the developer from moving
forward with a housing development. The proposed PUD, as currently outlined by the
developer, should be rejected.
Thanks,
Ryan Ewing
515 E Georgia Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 433
From: tgoering
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 5:57:25 PM
Dear Chairman Swart an Camelback East VPC Members:
I live in and work in the area near this proposed development. I oppose the rezoning of
the property at 7th Street and Coltgr from C-2 to PUD.
This area is already saturated and a 5 story housing complex is inconsistent with the
heights of other buildings in the surrounding area. Traffic in the areas abutting this
complex is already congested at some times of the day without adding this density.
Surrounding properties with lower heights will be negatively impacted; when you travel
down 7th Street you typically have a nice view corridor which some two story buildings
have distracted from but a 5 story complex within 15 feet of 7th Street will clearly distract
from the neighborhood and negatively affect it. This project would fit in more
appropriately south of Camelback rather than allow tall buildings to creep into existing
neighborhoods. I fear that residents in North Central will start fleeing if this kind of
development continues to occur.
Your consideration to my objection is greatly appreciated.
Teresa Goering
Work Address: 1118 East Missouri Avenue, Suite Bl, Phoenix, AZ 85014
Home Address: 529 West Lawrence Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85013
Page 434
From: darren@boycecomponents.com
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: STOP Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 9:37:24 AM
Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC members,
I am a lifelong resident of north central and a 3rd generation Phoenician. My father grew up here and graduated
from North High in 57’
The PUD here is wildly inappropriate for this area. This proposal woould violate the neighborhood character that
has been here since the 40’s when the character was developed. The porposed PUD runs counter to the long standing
character of the neighborhood that has been in place since its development out of citrus orchards.
Please vote no and recomend the developer attempt to blend with the neighbors INSTEAD OF TAKE FINANCIAL
ADVANTAGE of them.
Darren Boyce
5645 N 6th Street
Phoenix AZ
Page 435
From: Kathryn Walters
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Proposed PUD at 7th Street and Coulter
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 7:54:39 AM
After learning more about the proposed apartments I realize the petition circulators
misrepresented the negative impact on my neighborhood.”
This will not improve our neighborhood.
Kathryn Walters
7 East San Miguel
Phx, Az 85012
Sent from my iPad
Page 436
From: Nancy Greenlee
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: council.district6@phoenix.gov
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 3:33:50 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
I am opposed to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2 to PUD.
The plans for Zola North show a complex too tall and too large for my neighborhood.
Access only on Colter is going to cause considerable congestion in this area and way
too much traffic for a neighborhood with pets, older residents, and children. It will
make walking in the neighborhood harder and less enjoyable. I live at 8th Pl and
Colter and there are already drivers driving much too fast going to and from the car
dealerships on the corner of 8th Pl and Camelback. This complex is not in keeping
with the neighborhood!!!!
Please do not allow Zola North to be imposed upon my neighborhood!!!!
Nancy Greenlee
821 E Fern Dr N
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Page 437
From: Robert Falk
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 5:57:23 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
As like many community members, I am opposed to the rezoning of the property at
7th St and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development)As I know you are well aware, there are many arguments to why the
zoning should not be changed. Here are a few that directly affect our community.
-Traffic will increase on Colter going east and going west through the existing
Windsor Square neighborhood. Traffic already is an issue, this proposed change
would drastically make the problem worse.
- The Height (60’) and density (189 units on 2.55 acres with 80% lot coverage) is
not aligned with the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2015) and is out of character
with the surrounding neighborhood.
-The Inadequate guest parking on-site will force parking on the neighborhood
streets and cause more congestion.
While there are many more reasons to oppose this zoning change, the ones I have
listed will directly affect my community.
Thank you,
Robert Falk
220 E. Oregon Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 438
From: Stuart Shoen
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 1:46:10 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
I have lived in Phoenix my entire life (42 years old), and have lived, worked, and/or
gone to school in Central Phoenix since 1st grade. The proposed development is a
terrible idea in the location in which it’s proposed. Not only does it not merit being
developed, it certainly does not merit a zoning change to even give it or similar
developments a chance.
It simply does not fit with the rest of the neighborhood, and does not improve it.
Instead, it would be a regression in the quality of life in that area. There are no
shortage of sites south of Camelback Road and/or East of 16th Street where such a
development would be better suited. The developer can fetch a fine price for this
property; because of all the decisions that have preserved the neighborhood to keep
it the way it is, property values there are strong. I encourage you to direct the
developer to look at other sites.
I have no issue with new construction in general and am far from a dinosaur or an
old codger yelling at every new face to “get off my lawn”. In truth, this area is a
fantastic place to buy a single family home and attempt to raise a family. I
encourage anyone interested to do so, but the type of resident in such a development
are short-term residents, not long term folks who add stability and improve the
neighborhood over time. These residents both engage in activities that reflect this
shallow commitment to the neighborhood and similarly decline to participate in
activities that improve and stabilize the area (as compared to someone who
considers moving here for a decade or more).
There is no way anyone who is familiar with the neighborhood in which this site is
located can say with a straight face that this is the highest and best use of the site.
I also understand that the developer has rebuffed attempts to meet with the
community and may not be proposing it with a willingness to work in good faith
with its neighbors. That they do not even attempt to feign neighborly kindness is
troubling and insulting; no one would be optimistic about the prospect of being
neighbors with someone like this.
I strongly urge you to prevent this development from happening in any way that
remotely resembles what has been proposed here. Many thanks for considering my
feedback.
Stuart Shoen
615 W. Lawrence Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85013
602-363-0532
Page 439
From: Zach Williams
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Re: Proposed Zola Project
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 5:52:40 PM
Thank you for asking to be certain, I apologize if that wasn't clear. I oppose the zoning
proposal and the project as it currently stands.
-Zach
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022, 5:46 PM Sarah Stockham
Hi Zach,
Thank you for reaching out. Just to be clear, do you support or oppose the
proposal?
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Zach Williams
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 6:53 AM
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Proposed Zola Project
Hello,
I am contacting you in regard to the proposed zoning change in support of the Zola project at
7th and Colter. I live at 317 E. Pasadena.
Page 440
While I am not immediately impacted by some of the many concerns my neighbors have
brought to your attention. My family will be immediately impacted by increased traffic flow
that will result from our neighborhood being used as a cut through to avoid Camelback
traffic.
Our neighborhood has already struggled with increased traffic. There is no doubt that adding
this oversized, out of place housing complex immediately outside of our neighborhood will
compound the issue. Any resident living there will try to avoid traffic like any reasonable
person and our neighborhood is the easiest way for them to cut through to their homes and
avoid traffic lights and frequent traffic on Camelback. This creates a safety issue for my two
young children and the many children on our block because people routinely speed we'll
above the approved limit.
I'd ask that you also consider this point along with the many other valid, concerning issues
our neighborhood association have notified you about.
-Zach Williams
Page 441
From: Janis & Ben Harris
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: council.district6@phoenix.gov
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 10:43:41 PM
Dear Ms. Stockham,
We oppose the rezoning of the property at 7th Street and Colter from C-2 to PUD.
The height and density proposed is not aligned with the City’s General Plan and is out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Please vote against the rezoning proposal.
Thank you,
Janis and Ben Harris
516 East Stella Lane
Phoenix, AZ
Page 442
From: Jill
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 8:41:40 PM
Im writing in opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2 to PUD.
I dont believe the proposed apartment complex is in the best interest of our neighborhood.
Jill Estep
15 E Lawrence Rd
Phoenix, Az 85012
Page 443
From: Michael Belcher
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Rezoning request (Case # Z-27-22-6)
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 4:42:14 PM
Dear Ms. Stockham,
I’ve received two letters from Snell & Wilmer on behalf of ZOM Living concerning their
request to rezone the property on the NE corner of 7th Street and Colter. I’ve lived in
this area for thirteen years now and my fiancée has been here for 26. Over the years,
we have seen many changes to this neighborhood and not all of them for the benefit
of our community. Rezoning to allow this development would be a further detriment.
We already experience too much non- local traffic speeding thru our streets; primarily
due to the congested traffic on both Camelback and 7th Street - more cars will just
add to the problem. The City already utilizes reverse center lanes on 7th Street with
No Left Turns allowed during mornings and rush evening hours. The traffic backs up
at the 7th St. and Camelback lights causing people seeking to avoid the light, to turn
on Colter instead. Traffic congestion is a problem, magnified by the excessive
speeding. The posted limit is 25 mph, very few cars obey the limit. I have personally
witnessed vehicles while walking my dog, doing 40-45 mph. There are families with
little kids living along Colter, several of which have posted personal signs and pleas
for drivers to slow down. It hasn’t done much good that I can tell. Cars continue to
speed.
Since the developer’s proposal does not comply with the existing zoned use for this
property, their purposal is solely for the benefit of ZOM Living. It adds nothing to the
livability of this neighborhood for the existing owners and tenant residents here. Their
Project Overview section exaggerates when states the design concept will “reinforce
a strong pedestrian environment along 7th street by providing for a large landscaped
zone between the roadway and the sidewalk” of 11 feet. Since when has 11 feet ever
been considered large? Their proposed set-back of 20’ max on 7th and 15’ max for
Colter are unacceptable. Why should this development be allowed to build closer to
the property lines than any other development in this neighborhood? At best, they
should have to observe the same set-backs rules as the Apartment complex across
the street on the SE side of the Colter intersecting with 7th Street. The proposed
building of 200 units and the limited amount of parking provided is inadequate. The
specifications state they only intend to provide 248 general spaces and 6 handicaped
spaces for the entire 200 units. Many tenants will have more than one vehicle--where
are all the extra vehicles going to park? There is no additional parking available on 7th
St., and Colter only allows parking on the North side of the street until you are East of
8th Place, where both sides of the street are currently full of parked vehicles, from all
the other residents in the area, nor on the North side of 8th Place where both sides of
the street are always full of parked cars from Colter to Missouri. If this project is
approved anyway, they should require at least 400 regular spaces for Tenant and
Guest parking + 10 handicap spaces at a minimum.
Page 444
This project is not fit for this neighborhood. Please do not grant them the rezoning
they are requesting. Support the neighborhood, not the developer, who obviously
does not care about those already residing here. If you would like a tour of our
neighborhood, please call me at the phone number below, and I would be happy to
show you around.
Regards,
Michael Belcher
834 E Orange Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85014
(480) 339-9735
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 445
From: James Fritz
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Re: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 12:02:30 PM
Dear Chairman Swatt and Camelback VPC Members:
The proposed residential development on Northwest corner of 7th Street and Colter is simply
unacceptable in its current design. The expected residential density at 78 residents per acre is
substantially over current allowance. A residential density in excess of 5 times current allowance is
totally inappropriate. A 60 foot, five story apartment complex far exceeds is also inappropriate and
far beyond the current 30 foot limit.
Please, this type of development at 7th Street and Colter should be rejected out-of-hand. Apply
current limits to the development or reject the development completely.
Thank you for consideration.
Jim & Lynn Fritz
310 West Northview Av
Phoenix, AZ 85021
Page 446
From: Hope Lucatorta
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: RE; Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2022 3:34:20 PM
I am using this method to strongly oppose the rezoning of the property at 7th ST. and Colter from C-2
to PUD.
Reason being that Colter st is the only thru street traveling east from 7th st to 12th st. That being the
case we already have extreme traffic with cars traveling thru this neighborhood to avoid heavy
traffic on 7th st especially during “rush hours. WE ALREADY HAVE 2 APT COMPLEXES ON THE
CORNERS OF 7TH ST & COLTER adding one more apt complex would be disastrous. Most of our
residents are middle age or older and exercise by walking their dogs thru the neighborhood.
Respectfully yours,
Esperanza Lucatorta
1011 E. Colter St
PHX 85014
602 650 1946
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 447
From: Judy Fineman
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central Camelback East Village Planning Committee:
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2022 4:15:31 AM
RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members ,
I am in opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
We have lived in our neighborhood for close to 40 years and welcome appropriate change, however,
this is not. Please do not rezone!
Thanks,
Judy Fineman
6040 N 4th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-402-1339
--
Judy Fineman
Cell: 602-402-1339
Page 448
From: beneped@aol.com
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z 27 22 6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2022 1:26:41 PM
Being a homeowner I heartily oppose the rezoning of the property on 7th Street and Colter from C-2 to
PUD.
What is the developer thinking (besides making some bucks)?! The neighborhood already has over
developed apartment
complexes in the area, the streets are filled with speeding cars now and our previously charming lifestyle
is suffering.
The real estate market is about to collapse again as well.
Would appreciate any efforts on your part to disallow this ridiculous idea.
Thank you.
Melanie Milliner and Family
5624 N 4th Street
Phoenix AZ 85012
Page 449
From: eyeswest@aol.com
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2022 4:27:07 AM
RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members ,
I am in opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
We have lived in our neighborhood for close to 40 years and welcome appropriate change,
however, this is not. Congestion is getting worse with the new apartment developments.
Please do not rezone!
Thanks,
ScottFineman
6040 N 4th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-402-1339
Page 450
From: Mark Tucker
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 13, 2022 10:12:24 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I just wanted to voice my opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). I believe that this change in zoning
will negatively impact our neighborhood both from a visual standpoint as well as a traffic problem.
Our neighborhood prides ourselves by being heavily involved in the types of new buildings that our
built in our community. This type of building with the many units and 5 stories is not what we
believe fits into our neighborhood.
Thank you for continued support of our important neighborhood.
Mark Tucker
502 E Marlette Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 451
From: arja shah
To: Sarah Stockham; ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
Cc: ALEX MEYERS
Subject: Fwd: application no. z-27-22
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:06:21 PM
Hello-
I perhaps live closest to the proposed 200 unit site. It is obsurd to add more cut through traffic
where the Do Not Enter signage is uselessly posted. Daily we nearly avoid speeding traffic.
My household will pay for a traffic study to show the added impact of this development. Our
offer to pay for even speed bumps, closing off Colter and attempts to work with traffic police
seem to fall on deaf ears. It is disheartening to say the least. We are not anti-developemt, but
feel as if our voices and ability to enjoy our properties are disregarded.
Please strongly look at the affect of Windsor Square.
Respectfully,
--
Arja Shah
Shah Law Firm
24 W. Camelback Suite 498
Phoenix, AZ 85013
P. 480-619-0696
arjashahlaw.com [arjashahlaw.com]
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from the law
firm of Shah Law Firm, PLLC. that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information,
and no privilege has been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this
message. Thank you.
--
Arja Shah
Shah Law Firm
24 W. Camelback Suite 498
Phoenix, AZ 85013
P. 480-619-0696
arjashahlaw.com [arjashahlaw.com]
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from the law
firm of Shah Law Firm, PLLC. that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are
Page 452
not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information,
and no privilege has been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this
message. Thank you.
Page 453
From: Bryce Pearsall
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Phoenix
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:37:20 PM
RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Dear Chairman Stewart and Camelback East Village Planning Committee Members
I strongly oppose the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
After investigating the proposed project plan for the property it is clear it is harmful to the
neighborhood character, impacts traffic and is of overwhelming size for the area and the
current neighborhood and business environment.
It is clearly an attempt by a developer to build an oversized project for the developers profit.
Across Phoenix huge apartment projects are being built right up to the street and of a scale
and size that the neighborhoods character is being destroyed. This proposed project is yet
another one of those.
As both a professional architect and more importantly a neighborhood resident I strongly ask
that you deny this rezoning request.
Sincerely,
Bryce D. Pearsall FAIA
6845 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 454
From: Cindy Carrera
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:59:18 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
We are residents in the area of the above-mentioned proposed development. After
reading more about the project, we are writing to express our opposition to the
rezoning of the property from C-2 to PUD for the above proposed development.
Specifically, we are concerned with the height and the density of the initial plans,
and the negative impact it will have on our neighborhood. After reading more
about the project, it is our belief that the height and density are not aligned with the
City’s General Plan (adopted in 2015) and is out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Cindy Carrera and Bob McCracken
118 East San Miguel Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-882-4164
Page 455
From: Tom Blanchard
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:39:25 PM
Dear friends on the Planning Committee,
My wife and I (both retired) live just down the street from this project, and we
regularly (every morning, for many years) walk in this part of the neighborhood.
While we understand the need and desire for more housing, we would respectfully
request the City and the developer to remain within existing zoning
restrictions. The proposed re-zoning just doesn't fit the neighborhood, and it will
certainly make things more dangerous for us both on the sidewalks and on the side
streets, with all the complications of parking as well. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Rev. Thomas & Louisa Blanchard
1101 E Bethany Home Rd Unit 21
Phoenix AZ 85014
Page 456
From: Sharon Barr
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Re: Zola North Central PUD, Case #ZA-27-22-6,
Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:08:52 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Committee:
Re: Zola North Central PUD
Case #ZA-27-22-6
Zola North Central Agenda Item: Sept. 6, 2022 Meeting
I am writing to voice my opposition to the re-zoning at 7th Street
and Colter from C-2 Intermediate Commercial to PUD (Planned
Unit Development).
My neighbor, Sandy Grunow of the Phoenix Mid-Century Modern
Neighborhood Association, brought this matter to my attention.
I understand that the minimum rent at this development will be
around $2,000.00 per month for a studio. I realize that there are
residents of Central Phoenix could might possibly be able to come
up with that amount, but not in that neighborhood!
Right across to the south of your planned development is a complex
built around 1969 called "Seventh". Many of the people who live
there can barely afford the rents they have now, which have increased
dramatically over the past few years. There are other smaller, privately-
owned apartments throughout the "Colter Commons" Neighborhood
Association whose rents have also gone sky-high compared to what they
were only in the last decade. If the owners and property management
companies in this area raise their rents to keep up with your proposed
luxury development rental rates, what is going to happen?
What Phoenix needs right now are affordable rents, not unaffordable!
The media seems not to understood how the homeless situation in our
city has become so serious and in such a short time. Are you aware of it?
I can tell you exactly what's caused it. Property owners and property
management companies who keep raising rents higher and higher, until
residents can't afford to pay for their housing--much less utilities, personal
bills, groceries and such!
Please reconsider the development of this luxury community in a part of
Page 457
Phoenix where many couldn't even dream of living in such a place, and if
you won't do that, please think about bringing down your proposed rents.
Over two-thousand dollars per month for just a studio is absolutely unrealistic!
I shudder to think what has been proposed for the larger units!
Most sincerely,
Sharon Barr
(602) 314-5812
Former active member of the Nile Neighborhood Association, Desert Park, and
Colter Commons Neighborhood Associations, all in Phoenix over the past 25 years.
Page 458
From: Sue Rhoads
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Opposed still to Zola PUD
Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:18:50 AM
I would like to again provide an opposition statement related to the Zola PUD. I have attended
3 meetings with Zola North Central present. The first was on 5/23/22 in which we were all
muted and had to type in questions that they had the option of hand picking, and again on 8/17
when we were again muted and required to type in questions. We did meet with Nick Wood
and the Zola Development Team on 6/23/2022 where I was hopeful that we would be heard
and they would demonstrate by making meaningful modifications to their project to conform
to the neighborhood. BUT, that DID NOT happen.
If this communication sounds like I'm emotional distraught over this project, I AM!! I have an
emotional interest in preserving our historic neighborhood.
1. The property is too small for such a dense 200 unit project!!
2. It does not conform to the surrounding residential properties related to design and height.
3. The argument for providing more affordable housing is a hoax, the prices of these units only
provide an excuse for surrounding apartments to inflate their rents. Which one property stated
was the reason they are not opposed to Zola. GREAT NEWS!!!
4. I'm appalled if the City allows this high priced law firm and the revenue seeking
development team to pretend they are trying to work with the surrounding neighborhood.
CLEARLY after all the questions and concerns there are no recognizable changes in this
monstrous structure that will be towering over Windsor Square Historic district and the
surrounding neighborhood to the east. How is it possible to see this structure as "in harmony
with the neighborhood"? It is clearly invasive!!
5. Has anyone made a visit to this site? The lack of adequate setbacks from 7th street
demonstrates the noise level that those occupying the apartments along 7th Street, with
balconies to increase noise levels in the apartments all day...all night. I back up to 7th Street
and from my vantage point I also hear intense noise that a block wall and several layers of
trees and shrubs have not muffled.
Please do not negatively impact our historic neighborhoods by permitting this development
to talk you into approving this project by misguiding you into believing we need another 5
story apartment building as a source of city revenue--while only providing additional high rent
housing to contribute to inflation. Times are changing and I have been around long enough to
recognize this cycle of overbuilding apartments- then having huge signs to try to draw in
renters. Vela Camelback is a great example of this desperate efforts to lease with huge
unsightly banners.
Susan Rhoads, RN, MSN and over 70 year old resident of Phoenix since 1996
5129 N. 6th Street (back up to 7th Street)
Page 459
From: Thomas O. Hilditch
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:41:35 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East Village Planning Committee,
I am writing on behalf of the Windsor Square Special Planning District to oppose the Zola North Central
project.
This project is not compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhoods or the character of North
Central Phoenix; specifically, the height, density, and setbacks are uncharacteristic of the area.
We are not opposed to development in the area and are sensitive to the unmet housing needs across the
Valley. However, we believe that partnership with surrounding communities is essential for the success of
any project. In this instance, the developer has had limited engagement with neighborhoods and appears
to be moving forward without responding to community input.
We believe that the developer is not working in good faith to develop a project that is compatible,
cohesive, and respectful of the area. The current C2 zoning allows the developer to move forward with a
housing development. However, the proposed PUD, as currently outlined by the developer, should be
rejected.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas O. Hilditch
President
Windsor Square Special Planning District
33 East Colter Street
Phoenix, AZ -85012-
617-905-8989
Page 460
From: Laurie Barcelona
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 3:45:40 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
My husband and I oppose the rezoning of the property at 7th Street and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
to PUD (Planned Unit Development). There is already too much traffic on Colter as it is, and the planned
development would only increase the vehicle traffic, making it much more dangerous.
Thank you.
Sam and Laurie Barcelona
1008 E. Colter St.
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Sent from my iPad
Page 461
From: Beth Postma
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Mike Freret
Subject: Zoning Case Z27-22-6 Zola Apartments
Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:20:34 AM
This letter is in regards to the proposed rezoning of the property at 7th Street and Colter
avenue from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
I have lived in the Windsor Square neighborhood on the west side of 7th Street for 29
years. I am opposed to the rezoning of this project and the current submitted plan. I fully
support appropriate housing projects and myself am involved in construction and
development so I am fully supportive of development in our area as long as it follows the
guidelines set up by the City and as long as it is consistent with other developments
adjacent. Please see below listed reasons why I oppose this rezoning and site plan as it is
currently submitted.
· Density and building height – The adjacent developments are two story buildings and this
site would be a perfect fit for condos, townhouses or multi-family with a two-story height.
Per the City of Phoenix General Plan adopted in 2015, 60’ height and the proposed
density does not fit this site.
· Design – the contemporary style, small setbacks and lack of substantial landscaping does
not fit in this neighborhood which has increased in value partly due to the sensitivity to
historic character and traditional design when remodeling or rezoning property
· Parking and accessibility issues – Colter and 7th Street is already dangerous with the
current traffic due to the directional center lane (suicide lane) at peak traffic hours and the
disregard for the current traffic rules. Specifically, the no entrance on the West side of
Colter is a favorite cut through during high traffic times and this will only continue to get
worse the more cars we have in this area. Also, there is inadequate parking for the
approximate 189 units proposed in the Zola plan. Most unites will house 1-2 people and if
each of them drive, that will be 200-400 cars looking for parking. Also, with the current
design, residents of Zola will park on Colter with the doors leading out of the units onto
Colter Avenue. Also, all of the existing neighbors that use Colter as their access to 7th
Street with the additional 400 cars from Zola trying to exit or enter during peak traffic hours
will overburden Colter Avenue. The obvious solution would be changing the entrance/exit
to 7th Street instead of Colter
This type of development is incompatible with projects north of Camelback (uptown).
It is more appropriate for development south of Camelback (downtown). The open
feeling of the area with views of Camelback Mountain will be destroyed and property
values of the adjacent apartments, condos and houses will decrease
I would request that the City require the developer to go back to the drawing board and propose a
project within the current zoning allowance for height and number of units. Thank you for
considering my input.
Sincerely,
Beth Postma
248 East Orange Drive
Page 462
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 463
From: Andre DeMarco
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 11:31:00 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East PVC Members,
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed development on the north side of Colter and 7th
street in Phoenix by the Zola Corporation. I have been a home owner and resident of the
community for over 25 years. While I am not opposed to the continued development of the
7th street business corridor and renovations to the adjacent neighborhoods, I do believe that
this particular project as it is presented will have significant negative effects on the
surrounding neighborhood and homeowners.
My biggest concern is the additional traffic that any project adding up to 200 new residences
in the community will have on traffic flow. Colter is the main through-way between 7th and
12th street. Currently, rush hour traffic between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm has increased
considerably over the past 5 years. I know that 60% of traffic from the development is
expected to exit the community onto 7th street, but, that leaves 40% to cycle through our
neighborhood. This has the potential to transform Colter Street from a neighborhood
throughway into another Missouri Avenue. Currently, without sidewalks on the majority of
Colter, and having curbside parking, this increased traffic raises the likelihood of pedestrian
and vehicle accidents considerably. This situation can be dramatically resolved (if not
completely eliminated) by having the main entrance of the development on 7th street like the
other large scale properties on 7th street such as "The Carlyle" and the "Velva".
I also believe that Zola needs to comply with the City's existing General Plan for development
adopted in 2015 as it pertains to set-backs from both 7th street and Colter Street and their
building height. I am concerned that being too close to 7th street will significantly decrease
visibility of on-coming traffic on 7th street and create hazardous entry onto 7th street going
southbound.
I do not believe that the available parking has been adequately assessed. To assign only 1
space per unit is unrealistic, considering they will be having 2 bedrooms units, as well as guest
parking. These are apartments and will more than likely have 2 adults in a 2 bedroom
apartment, each driving a car. The same is true for a family occupying a 2 bedroom unit.
Each parent typically has their own vehicle. This lack of parking will cause on-street parking
on Colter and 8th Place. I live on Colter at 10th Street and do not want to look at car parked in
front of my house. I would never park down at 7th Street and Colter in front of their
development, so, why is it appropriate for their residents to part in from of my home?
Finally, I did speak with one of Zola's representatives about signing a petition to endorse this
development. I will share that he thoroughly misrepresented the nature of the development.
For example, he stated only the total number of units, never that it was going to be a 5 story
development. Also, that the landscaping was going to be so beautiful and extensive that he
made it sound like a City of Phoenix Park was going to be built, rather than an apartment
complex. He was extremely coercive in attempting to get me to sign and when I refused, he
asked me why I didn't want additional residences to an already beautiful neighbor. I told him
I'd rather have additional businesses or restaurants along 7th street to support to community,
something I could benefit from. I also told him that the businesses would have less traffic in
Page 464
our neighborhood to deal with. With that he left.
Please take making modification to this development seriously. We are talking about a
negative impact on hundreds of families and individual lives on our neighborhood and
community. Thank you for your time and attention.
Andre DeMarco
921 E. Colter Street
Page 465
From: Maggy- Margaret Haugen
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 7:11:10 PM
Dear Chairman Stewart and Camelback East VPC Members
As President of the Imperial Plaza Condominium Association, we express our concerns about the
proposed project, some of which were also stated as concerns by the Phoenix Planning and
Development staff* and the Phoenix Streets Department*:
1. *Height (60’) and density (189 units on 2.55 acres with 80% lot coverage) is not aligned
with the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2015) and is out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. *Setback on 7th St. (20’), Colter (15’) and North and East property (0) , are not aligned
with the City’s General Plan) and are out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. *Ingress/egress is on Colter rather than 7th St.
4. *Landscape is not adequate to meet City standards.
5. Traffic will increase on Colter going east and west, negatively impacting Imperial Plaza
Condominium Association/Kensington HOA.
6. Traffic will increase on 8th Pl, which in areas is only one lane, south of Colter.
7. There is a school bus stop, at the corner of 8th Pl and Colter. The increased traffic will
present a danger to the children.
8. Units with patio/doors with direct access to Colter will encourage resident parking on
Colter.
9. Inadequate guest parking on Colter will force parking on Colter.
10. The 5-story parking garage will negatively affect our 2 story multifamily condominiums.
11. The trash compound at the southeast end of the property will negatively impacting
Imperial Plaza Condominium Association/Kensington HOA.
12. A 60-foot-tall building within 15 feet of 7th St. will block the open view corridor that is
typical on 7th St.
Sincerely,
Margaret Haugen President
Imperial Plaza Condominium Association/Kensington HOA
emeraldmaggy@hotmail.com
Page 466
From: Craig King
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC; Craig King
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 5:08:56 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
I am opposed to the rezoning request proposed for the property
on the Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter to increase the
height from the current zoning of 30 feet to 60 feet, to change the
set-backs, and to increase the density from 17 units per acre to
78.50 units per acre.
The developer's rezoning plans show no regard for the character
of the neighborhood that the residents have worked hard to
maintain since it was initially established in the late 1800s.
The developer wants to increase the density to increase their
profit potential- their plans show they have no regard for the
negative changes they will cause to the neighborhood. As soon as
they can, they will sell the property and leave the members of the
neighborhood to live and deal with a building that does not fit with
the neighborhood. A property of this density will result in
increased traffic that will change traffic patterns and disrupt nice
quiet neighborhoods. Inadequate parking for the apartment
residents and their guests will result in street parking by the
residents and their guests that is likely to increase accidents in the
neighborhood.
The current zoning was established to maintain this neighborhood
in its current character.
I expect that the developer has paid "experts" to show that the
rezoning of the property will not negatively impact the
neighborhood. Please be aware that any "experts' who stated that
the zoning change would have a negative impact were not hired to
produce a report. As a result, any "expert" report provided by the
developer should be viewed with skepticism.
My request to you is to allow the residents of the neighborhood to
maintain the character that they have worked hard to preserve by
denying the rezoning request.
Thank you
Craig King
301 E. Wagon Wheel Drive
Page 467
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Page 468
From: Diane Peterson
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 4:13:14 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
I live in the neighborhood that would be directly impacted by this project and I am
STRONGLY opposed to it. I believe the variance from the current character of the
neighborhood would negatively impact our property values. As a dog walker I am also very
concerned about the increased flow of traffic. I would contend that a higher rise type of
building is more suited for the midtown or downtown area. I would be happy to discuss this
with anyone that may desire such a conversation. Thank you,
Diane Lees
1038 E Georgia Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85014
602-363-5605
Page 469
From: mel chase
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: council.district6@phoenix.gov
Subject: Re: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 4:21:13 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Committee:
After reviewing a copy of the documents submitted to the city for the subject project, I want to
oppose approval of the rezoning on the basis of the negative impact the project would have on
our neighborhood. The height of the proposed building, the density of lot coverage and
setbacks, and the amount of traffic that will be dumped on neighborhood streets will not be
compatible with our surrounding area.
As a 60-year resident of the immediate neighborhood, I feel a development more aligned with
the current developments in the area would be more appropriate.
Sincerely, Melvin G. Chase
1037 E. Oregon Ave.
Phoenix, AZ. 85014
Page 470
From: Mary Crozier
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: ZA-27-22-6 Proposed PUD at 7th St and Colter
Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 10:36:52 AM
Dear Ms. Stockham and members of the Camelback East Village committee:
I am writing this letter to you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the North Central Phoenix Homeowners
Association (NCPHA) and the 2500 properties within the NCPHA boundaries.
We are adamantly opposed to the proposed zoning changes to the 2 parcels at 7th Street and Colter from C-2 to
PUD. These parcels, under the current zoning, already allow for multifamily housing that is the appropriate density
and height to this area.
Not only is this proposed PUD not allowed within the City of Phoenix’s General Plan, but there is no good reason to
change the underlying zoning to allow for such egregious and inappropriate requests beyond the scope of the
existing multifamily uses.
We are exceedingly disappointed that the developer’s representative did not reach out to our organization as
recommended by the Planning and Development department back in January 2022. It was nearly 6 months later that
we met, expressed our concerns with the project, and made recommendations for a more collaborative design. Our
concerns and recommendations echo that of the Planning and Development department in respect to height, density,
setbacks and ingress/egress and the negative impacts such an inappropriate design will have on the adjacent
neighborhood.
As you know, the NCPHA has a strong reputation in supporting new development and working collaboratively with
developers to create the best projects for all parties concerned. Unfortunately in this case, neighborhood feedback
has been ignored and no outreach has occurred with the developer or the developer’s representative since June 23.
As a result, we are now being forced to strong oppose the project as it is currently designed. New development
should be required to be contextual to the adjacent area and this proposed PUD is clearly not. The proposed project
of this size and scope would be ideal south of Camelback and along the TOD.
Please do not vote to support this proposed PUD as it will set a dangerous precedent for future inappropriate
development in North Central.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Crozier
President
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
Page 471
From: MaryBeth Groseta
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Fwd: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 27, 2022 7:55:32 AM
See content
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: MaryBeth Groseta
Date: Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 3:50 PM
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
To: Francie Lloyd
Cc: MaryBeth Groseta
I am a resident of 18 years living on Colter Street between 12th Street and 7th Street. My
sister and I live together, and are both natives of Phoenix, Arizona. We are in our early 70s
and are very familiar with this area, the Phoenix area and how it is grown, and what we see is
good or not good for our area and neighborhood.
1) COLTER STREET IS VERY CROWDED already. There are numerous apartment
buildings going up everywhere you look, many many within a 3-mile radius of our
neighborhood.
Colter Street, our street, is a very CROWDED street currently.
.. THERE ARE a MINIMUM of 6 SETS OF APARTMENTS /Small Condo Units
BETWEEN 7TH STREET AND 10TH STREET ALREADY!
.. there are a massive number of apartments on Colter between 12th Street and 16th Street.
.. The residents of these apartments and the single dwelling homes obviously use Colter as
their " through" street. Even with the speed bumps, there is much traffic on this road simply
because the residents and regular traffickers know this is a straight way through from 7th
Street to 16th Street.
.. The auto dealerships on Camelback, which you know are numerous, use Colter to test drive
their vehicles. Even the transporters with numerous vehicles come down our street because it's
fairly wide.
.. there are lots of kids on this street and lots of grandparents who take care of their grandkids
on this street and it's already difficult keeping the children safe with so much traffic going on.
.. If you add more cars to this street, you endanger pedestrians who use this street daily for
walking their baby strollers, their children, their dogs, and riding their bicycles. There are a
large number of disabled and elderly people who walk on this street, with walkers,
wheelchairs, motorized units and canes. These individuals are slow and cautious in moving
around. Driving a car, we have to be much more careful when we see them out getting their
exercise.
.. when there are parades, Colter is the street, on the east side of the parade route, that lines up
Page 472
cars on both sides of the street for a mile.
We can barely navigate through the street to get in and out of our driveways.
2). The LOCATION and SIZE is a definite negative.
A 200 unit apartment complex is better suited in a larger upscale area not on a street already
populated with apartment buildings and crowded conditions. Although the architectures and
planners have done a semi nice job with the planning and pictures, this facility is a monstrosity
for a neighborhood such as Colter and 7th Street. Five stories...hello, this huge complex does
not work here in our lovely neighborhood. This is a lower to middle class neighborhood. We
don't need luxury apartments in this neighborhood. Folks that can afford more than what we
offer here in this Colter area, can easily go someplace else to pay higher rents. Tons of people
that we know cannot afford even a modest apartment, much less a luxury apartment, where
rent is going up regularly. Let's get real.
They simply need to find a more suited location for this type of planning structure.
3) There will not be enough PARKING for all the residents that will have vehicles. We know
from friends and family who live in these types of apartment complexes, many of them end up
having to park in the street. You have situations where there are roommates living together,
family living together, older kids who drive. Those folks will only have the capability of
parking on the street. PLEASE, LOOK AT THE CURRENT SITUATION ON OUR
STREET.
THE LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES ON COLTER AND 7TH STREET, BOTH
NORTH AND SOUTH, ALREADY USE THE STREET FOR EXCESS PARKING. IT IS
JAM-PACKED ALL THE TIME!
4). In the documentation explaining the project, there are numerous references to how this
proposed complex would be absolutely advantageous for PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT. We
have been watching pedestrian movement on every street in Phoenix for 60 years. In the
summer, of course, there's hardly anyone walking except homeless people, kids getting home
from school from the bus stop, a few others taking the bus, etc. Even in the winter, the foot
traffic is very low except for the group's noted.
Even in the areas where there are complexes, such as the proposed one, there is very little foot
traffic, unless their walking to a convenience store, etc. Bashas, is located on 7th Street and
Missouri. There are a few establishments on 7th Street in this area, but not many. People take
their cars. This one Zolo Complex is not going to change the preference, for six to seven
months of the year it's too hot to walk unless you have to... And in the winter months they
don't switch over to all of a sudden walking.
5) The more people you add to a neighborhood, the more CRIME you have. There are more
places for suspect individuals to get into trouble. Certainly, with your planning, it is important
to look at the number of people, the number of cars, the number of activities that go on in one
area. Just adding something that might look beautiful someplace else and have lots of nice
amenities, doesn't mean it's good for an area such as ours with all of the challenges currently
faced in the Colter neighborhood..
6). We definitely DO NOT want the ZONING changed from C-2 to PLAN UNIT
DEVELOPMENT!
THE ZONING NEEDS TO REMAIN C-2, INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL.
Well, that's all I can think of for right now. But I think these are the most important points.
Page 473
IF MY SISTER AND I THINK OF ANY OTHERS, WE WILL SEND ANOTHER EMAIL..
I appreciate the time and effort that it's gone into putting this project together. My
recommendation is to pick up the whole kit and caboodle and find a different place for it. It
certainly does not belong on Colter and 7th Street or in this vicinity.
Thank you for hearing our thoughts and concerns on this matter.
MARY BETH GROSETA
1032 E Colter St, Phoenix, AZ 85014
mbgroseta@gmail.com
Resident, 18 years.
Page 474
From: Tracy Schultz
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Saturday, August 27, 2022 11:06:39 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
First I want to thank you for taking the time to read and consider our concerns on this
matter. My name is Tracy. I am a mother of two toddler boys. My husband and I have lived
in the neighborhood for 6 years now and we love it!!! We love our neighbors!!! What I am not
loving is the traffic. Colter, just over a few years, has really picked up in "through" traffic.
Our current speed bumps are inadequate and most of Colter does not have sidewalks.
Speed limit is 25 which is often ignored. My concerns are that if an apartment building of that
size with inadequate parking is added to our lovely neighborhood as is, it is going to turn
Colter into a nightmare for pedestrian traffic. The pedestrian traffic consists of elderly,
families with very small children, disabled, runners, families walking their dogs, and bike
riders of all sorts and ages. This gives me high anxiety thinking about the increased speeding
traffic!! The current traffic situation is really, really bad! This neighborhood has enough
apartment style living currently. Would very much like to keep it that way. I would much
rather see businesses go in.
Some more concerns are crime related. I feel this is a safe neighborhood but adding more
people increases the likelihood of more illegal activity of all sorts. We have worked really
hard to make our home just how we dreamed!!!! My husband owns his business and has
earned everything we have. I would not take too kindly to anyone trying to steal, damage, or
hurt my property and family. I feel that adding Zola North Central will be stealing from my
family's experience of walking and riding our bikes to get popsicles, coffee, and lunch or
dinner as we will not have safe and easy access to roadway and sidewalks that barely exist as
is. Colter is not wide enough for more vehicle traffic. Adding Zola will damage views for
some. Some parts of the area you can get a great view of Camelback Mountain and Piestewa
Peak. Adding Zola will hurt the existing homeowners equity. My family strongly feels that
the current C-2 zoning should remain! Please do NOT change to PUD! Projects should follow
the current zoning restrictions that are in place.
I really feel that a fair and honest assessment of the current and future state of Colter St. has
NOT been made or considered. This project does not make sense. It should be re-evaluated
and considered for another area of town. If this project does go through, it should stay within
the current zoning restrictions. Please for the safety of current residents, young and old, do
not build Zola. I want my children to grow up in a neighborhood that they can be safe in.
Again, I thank you for taking the time to hear and consider our concerns.
Proud resident of Colter Commons,
Tracy Donow
1044 E. Colter St.
Page 475
From: Linda Gruber
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Frank Gruber; Linda Gruber
Subject: Item #3: Z-27-22-6
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 1:28:04 PM
As both a Traffic Safety Specialist and a user of 7th Street in the Colter area, I would like to
register my opposition to the proposed zoning change being requested by the Zola North
Central PUD.
The traffic increase will be significant if 200+ dwelling units are added by Zola to this
neighborhood as the units will equate to an estimated 200 to 400 additional motor vehicles in
this confined space.
Further, the building's parking lots and nearby streets will need to provide parking for these
vehicles, thereby adding traffic congestion, and risk for the current neighbors and new
residents as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicle operators passing through this
area, doing so on an already high trafficked street.
At a time when cities like Phoenix are making plans to reduce vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle
conflicts as advocated by Janette Sadick-Khan and the National Association of City
Transportation Officials, putting a high number of additional vehicles and their requisite
parking places in a limited space is not good urban street design nor a safe living
environment.
Respectfully,
Dr. Frank J. Gruber IV
7222 N. 22nd St.
Phoenix, AZ 85020
frankgruberiv@gmail.com
815/751-2012
Page 476
From: John Lierman
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:11:18 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
I am a resident of the Windsor Square Historic District and I oppose the proposed
development referenced above. Specifically, I oppose re-zoning the property at North
7th Street and Colter from C-2 to PUD, a silly, even disastrous, idea.
When I purchased my home in Windsor Square I did so partly because of attractions
of the North Central Phoenix area that will be negatively impacted by the proposed
development, which departs from the long-view, open sky architectural philosophy
that predominantly guides other development in the area. It is, in that sense, an
eyesore negatively affecting neighbors like me. The developer's PUD development
narrative degenerates into something of a sick joke on page 5 when it claims, of the
existing development on the parcel, that it "no longer complements the context of the
area as it redevelops," immediately after having observed that development of the
area is already well-established. Thus, the developer inadvertently betrays the fact
that its planned development would substantially alter the existing, established,
aesthetically attractive and sustainably livable neighborhood fabric, damaging it for
generations to come.
This candid admission by the developer is amplified on the following page, page 6, by
the statement that the Zola plan would " further diversify the availability of housing
types and density ranges in the immediate surrounding area." This is pure spin,
characterizing the disruption and destruction of an existing fabric of community and
neighborhood as its "diversification." See also the telling remark on the top of page 7
about "reinventing" the area--an area that quite obviously does not require
reinvention.
The proposed development is too far from the City's light rail system to make sense.
The developer admits this (on page 6). I have attended past presentations by the
City on its plan for development following the light rail, as well as for the Central
Corridor (7th Street, Central, and 7th Avenue), and everything I heard pointed toward
preservation of existing neighborhood values alongside commercial and high-density
residential development in proximity to the light rail network. The planned
development is a deviation from that longstanding plan and commitment. It belongs
downtown, not uptown, and not on the proposed parcel.
Already we see significant cut-through traffic between 7th Street and Camelback,
between Camelback and Central Avenue, and (possibly, I don't follow people)
between 7th Street and Central. The proposed development will certainly increase
that traffic.
Glance at the photographs concluding the developer's presentation and then kindly
take time to drive through the area as it exists now. You will see how the structure
the developer proposes would instantly become the dominant architectural feature
Page 477
within a half-mile radius of the site, constituting a substantial and negative deviation
from the character of the area affecting everyone in that radius. A development like
this would make sense at the corner of Central and Indian School, or 7th Avenue and
Camelback. It makes no sense whatsoever at the proposed site.
I urge you not to deviate from the City's longstanding commitments, via zoning. I urge
you to reject the proposed zoning change.
Very truly yours,
John Lierman
22 East Medlock Drive
Page 478
From: Diane
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:40:29 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I oppose the proposed PUD at 7th St. &Colter. It will add to traffic congestion, is out of
context with surrounding neighborhood and, is not aligned with the City’s General Plan. It will
take away any character we are trying to preserve in our community, which I am sure the
developer doesn’t care, as long as they can get their building up, and they can move on.
Please don’t let out of state developers come in and ruin what we are trying to preserve for our
community. The height, density and set backs of their proposal are not aligned with the City’s
General Plan. We don’t want the openness of 7th St. taken away with the 60’ height proposal.
Don’t let them get away with doing what they want, without listening to the community or
following the original zoning.
It’s already getting crazy here with these developments. We don’t want to turn into another
Los Angeles. Please listen to the community!
Diane Alston
Sent from my iPad
Page 479
From: Greg Hon
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 4:30:38 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
1. This parcel is currently zoned for multi-family development and why does
the developer need egregious exceptions in height, density and setbacks
vs. what is currently allowed
2. Ingress/Egress solely off of Colter will create traffic congestion, safety
hazards especially in light of the future changes on Colter to be multi-
modal.
3. If approved this will completely change the character of Uptown No.
Central with the excessive height and density
4. The requested zero setbacks will negatively impact the property values of
the condos to the east, as well as a enormous parking garage
5. Collaborative efforts to work with the developer and the developer’s
representative have been ignored
6. We are not against new development but this proposed PUD is in violation
of the General Plan and is out of context with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued support in protecting the integrity of North Central.
Regards,
Greg Hon
Page 480
From: Jennifer Thinnes
To: Sarah Stockham; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:52:52 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed PUD on 7th Street and Colter.
This parcel is currently zoned for multi-family development and why does the developer need
egregious exceptions in height, density and setbacks vs. what is currently allowed
Ingress/Egress solely off of Colter will create traffic congestion, safety hazards especially in
light of the future changes on Colter to be multi-modal.
If approved this will completely change the character of Uptown No. Central with the
excessive height and density
The requested zero setbacks will negatively impact the property values of the condos to the
east, as well as a enormous parking garage
Collaborative efforts to work with the developer and the developer’s representative have
been ignored
We are not against new development but this proposed PUD is in violation of the General Plan
and is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued support in protecting the integrity of North Central.
Jennifer and Ben Thinnes
6040 N 2nd Ave Phoenix AZ 85013
Page 481
From: Kal Miller
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:05:21 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
It is my understanding that a developer wishes to change the zoning for building to be constructed on the corner of
Colter and Seventh Street. There are currently rules on the books to govern this proposed construction. FOLLOW
THEM!!! Apparently negotiations with the developer have gone nowhere and they want exceptions to current
height, density, and setback rules currently approved by the City of Phoenix. What the developer wants will create
additional traffic congestion, change the character of uptown North Central, and impact the property values of the
surrounding area. This proposed PUD is in violation of the General Plan on the books. Developers cannot just come
in here and do whatever they please just because they want to. If there was some overriding justification for the
changes, that is another issue. There are apparently none stated. Go by the rules or take the building elsewhere! It is
the responsibility for the city to support the integrity of North Central and not the whims of some developer.
Kal Miller
North Central Resident
Page 482
From: rhodges974@aol.com
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: rhodges974@aol.com
Subject: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGED FOR PARCEL AT 7TH STREET AND COLTER
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:03:21 PM
I have lived in North Central Phoenix area since 1967 and have always
loved its suburban ambience, particularly the many almost-traffic-free streets
and the segregation of high-density construction and traffic in limited areas.
The proposed zoning change for the parcel at 7th St. and Colter, which
would allow the builder to exceed the current and longtime legal restrictions,
build buildings of ridiculous height, and create unwanted traffic congestion,
adding many safety hazards is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!
I urge you in the strongest terms to reject this proposal and vote NO!!!
Cordially,
Karen C. Hodges
515 West Belmont Avenue
Phoenix 85021
Page 483
From: Larry Whitesell
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Oppose Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central OUD
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 9:05:53 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Committee Members –
This email states the reasons that I am opposed to the application for the Zola North
Central PUD (Z-27-22-6). In short, there is no valid reason, based on the betterment
of the neighborhood and overall community, for the subject site to be zoned PUD.
The parcels are not oddly shaped, of two or more zoning designations, a problematic
location, or any other factor that might justify a PUD.
In addition, these parcels can be developed using the existing C-2 zoning designation
and still provide goals stated in the applicant’s narrative: More housing inventory,
more patrons for local businesses including restaurants, and more pedestrian friendly.
Using the existing zoning will also comply with the General Plan provision of
preserving neighborhood character and certainty (General Plan, pgs 104-108).
At the informational presentation in June, Mr. Wood stated in rebuttal:
1. There is a crisis in housing
However, on August 25, 2022, AzFamily News reported that Phoenix is nearly
halfway to the goal of creating 50K housing units by 2030, but that most of the
new housing has been market-price housing (16,776 units) not affordable (960
units). This proposed project does not contribute to the variety in housing types
that the narrative states.
2. The subject site is appropriate for high density housing because 7th St is a
major arterial
However, Colter is not. It is a minor collector street at best. It is not like 7th and
Camelback (major arterial), or even 7th and Missouri (arterial). According to the
Phoenix Traffic Engineering Department, Colter is being planned as a segment
of the multimodal network. Yet, the development has not heeded the directive,
“There shall be no permitted vehicular access to Colter Street.” (1st and 2nd
narrative review)
3. The size of the parcel, cost of land, labor and materials requires this density
However, Mr. Wood stated during the first neighborhood meeting that “The
Applicant is paying a premium price for the property with the understanding
that the property will be fully entitled for the development of the Project upon
closing.” (1st Neighborhood Meeting notes written and submitted by Mr. Wood)
Apparently, the applicant made the assumption, or was given assurance, that
this proposal would be “green-lighted” through the approval process. How
could the applicant have enough “understanding” to assume the risk of paying
a “premium price for the property?”
Throughout the application process, this proposed project has referenced the
Walkable Urban Code. (2nd Narrative Submission, March 30, 2022, pg 6) It is clear
Page 484
that Mr. Wood believes that this project is better suited for areas within the
boundaries of Transportation Oriented Districts. On that we can agree.
Please carefully consider these comments among the many others that have been
submitted by neighbors who oppose this out of character project.
Thank you,
Larry Whitesell, Co-chair
the PEAK NA
602-370-8453
Page 485
From: Monica Osselaer
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:17:44 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
As a North Central home owner, we are concerned, this parcel is currently
zoned for multi-family development and why does the developer need
egregious exceptions in height, density and setbacks vs. what is currently
allowed.
Ingress/Egress solely off of Colter will create traffic congestion, safety
hazards especially in light of the future changes on Colter to be multi-modal.
If approved this will completely change the character of Uptown No. Central
with the excessive height and density.
The requested zero setbacks will negatively impact the property values of the
condos to the east, as well as a enormous parking garage.
Sincerely ,
Monica Osselaer
North Central Homeowner
Page 486
From: Sue Rhoads
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Mike Freret; Andy Rogers; Anna Lee Speer; Larry Whitesell
Subject: Opposition Petition r/t Zola Central-Petitions
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:27:03 AM
Attachments: 9-1-2022 Opposition Petitions to current date.pdf
Please include the attached signed opposition petitions in the upcoming 9/6 Camelback East
Village Planning Committee Meeting representing the voice of approximately 180 neighbors
that would be negatively impacted by this project. We will continue our petition drive through
and up to the November 2nd City Council Hearing in order to provide neighbors a voice in
this important decision that will impact adjacent neighborhoods for many years to come, in
addition to setting a trend for future building/development projects.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sue Rhoads
5129 N. 6th Street
(602) 531-1066
Page 487
Page 488
Page 489
Page 490
Page 491
Page 492
Page 493
Page 494
Page 495
Page 496
Page 497
Page 498
From: Brad Hansen
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Alex Schlegel
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 10:10:18 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I am opposed to this request for rezoning as presented. My primary reason for
opposition is that it violates the General Plan and is out of context with the
surrounding neighborhood. If approved, this will completely change the
character of Uptown North Central where my business is and where I live.
Efforts to work with the developer have been ignored which sends a warning
sign that they have no desire to do what’s best for the community. Let’s send a
message to all developers that this neighborhood will not tolerate trying to
change current zoning for their own benefit at a cost to the community.
Thank you for continuing to protect the interest of North Central Phoenix.
Sincerely,
Bradley Hansen
Hansen Mortuary, Inc.
602.944.1561
Fax: 602.944.0302
Email: bradh@hansenm.com
Page 499
From: John Raffa
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 6:53:56 AM
Greeting, Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members.
reasons I do not want this development to move forward.
1. This parcel is currently zoned for multi-family development and why does the developer
need egregious exceptions in height, density and setbacks vs. what is currently allowed
2. Ingress/Egress solely off of Colter will create traffic congestion, safety hazards
especially in light of the future changes on Colter to be multi-modal.
3. If approved this will completely change the character of Uptown No. Central with the
excessive height and density
4. The requested zero setbacks will negatively impact the property values of the condos to
the east, as well as a enormous parking garage
5. Collaborative efforts to work with the developer and the developer’s representative have
been ignored
6. We are not against new development but this proposed PUD is in violation of the
General Plan and is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued support in protecting the integrity of North Central.
John Raffa
137 E Tuckey Ln
Page 500
From: Kiffie Robbins
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 8:54:19 AM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members:
We have lived in Uptown North Central for the last 25 years, 21 of which have
been in our current home. We know that development will continue, however
we are absolutely opposed to Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central for a multitude of
reasons. Our community continues to be an area in high demand, and new
developments need to be in keeping with the current zoning restrictions.
This parcel is currently zoned for multi-family development. Why does the
developer need egregious exceptions in height, density, and setbacks vs what is
currently allowed?
Ingress/Egress solely off of Colter will create traffic congestion and multiple
safety hazards especially in light of the future changes on Colter to be multi-
modal.
If approved, this will completely change the character of Uptown North Central
with the excessive height and density. The requested zero setbacks will
negatively impact the property values of the condos to the east, as well as add
an enormous parking garage.
Multiple neighborhood associations and community members have attempted
to work with the developer over the last few months to address these issues and
have the proposed complex redrawn to reflect the current zoning and have been
ignored by the developer and the developer’s representative. It is clear they do
not wish to work with the community they wish to build in
We are not against new development but this proposed PUD is in violation of
the General Plan and is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.
We are vehemently against this PUD in its current state.
Thank you for your continued support in protecting the integrity of North
Central.
Sincerely,
Kiffie Robbins
522 W Rose Lane - Phoenix, AZ 85013
602-527-0753
Page 501
From: Stan Evans
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Opposition to Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:43:17 PM
We are very strongly opposed to the proposed hi-rise apartment project at 7th Street
and Colter in Phoenix. We are told it is already zoned for multi-family projects, and
no need to exceed the prior general plan, as it would negatively impact the historic
nature of the North Central Phoenix neighborhood. With no set-back proposed, it will
be totally out of context with the neighborhood. The increased height exemption
totally violates the character of quiet enjoyment by existing property owners in the
area. Ingress/egress proposal would create negative traffic impact. This requested
exemption to existing Phoenix zoning standards should be denied.
Stanley Evans
35 East San Miguel
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Page 502
From: David Hohman
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 1:00:50 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
My wife, Jennifer, and I are area residents and homeowners who are strongly in
opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). We have been
Central Phoenix residents since moving here in 2012. We are in our third house in
the area, now also with our 4 year old son and we do love being in this part of town.
Our home is near 7th Ave and Northern and I commute to the Biltmore area daily
for work -- this change in zoning will impact a route in an area I travel regularly and
shop/dine in frequently (both summer and winter). I read the Zola proposal and,
while I appreciate the efforts of the team at Zom Living to assuage the impacts of
rezoning this parcel, I am against changing the zoning at this time.
This is an established area that, I feel as a resident, is quite well balanced in terms
of commercial and residential utilization and I would like it preserved. As our roads
are already constructed and no new natural stoplight locations exist near this
proposed project, my concern is that the pointed impact of this development will
have a negative effect on an already busy 7th/Camelback and 7th/Missouri
intersections, as well as 7th Street traffic overall. As the natural SR-51 freeway
entrances for these residents will be Highland and Colter, I also believe Colter is a
one-way westbound on the west side of 7th Street -- so it doesn't really offer an
outlet for residents leaving the apartments. I am concerned that their traffic impact
information is limited only to the immediate street front in such a urban project
design. Bus service will not alleviate the traffic nor will the nearest light rail service
at Central/Camelback. In short, I feel the impact of the traffic related to this
apartment project is not being presented -- as if this were an apartment out in the
farm fields of Gilbert -- and that is alarming in this proposal. The development of
the similar Vela high-density project SE of the Camelback and 7th St intersection
less than ten years ago has already added vehicular congestion to this intersection,
which is a cause of traffic along both streets (especially northbound 7th on weekday
afternoons). We have numerous new apartment/condo projects under construction
now on 19th Ave/Camelback; 7th Ave/Camelback; Central/Camelback; and Indian
School/Central -- however, this proposal differs from these projects in that there is
not light rail service near the project. The neighborhood is going to absorb these
impacts 100%. As this parcel is currently serving as a school campus and other
plots with similar zoning are hosting successful businesses on 7th, I see no value to
rezoning at this time. Especially to a five-story structure when the area is two-story
at most (including the apartment complex on the south side of Colter at 7th St). We
Page 503
are going to have more people coming into the area as I am sure more of these
developments are unavoidable. However, with all the existing higher density
construction in progress, 7th Street and Colter is not the area we need to drop in a 5-
story apartment right now. I think the best course of action is to let these other
projects finish; realize the impact; then reconsider such a drastic rezoning at this
7th/Colter parcel in a few years. Perhaps comparison on the impact of the Alta
North Phoenix (7th Street South of Maryland) that was recently constructed would
be useful to review as a real-life impacts of these zoning changes along 7th.
Thank you, David Hohman 611 W Augusta Ave Phoenix, AZ 85021
Page 504
ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-27-22-6
Date of VPC Meeting September 6, 2022
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 14-2-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
16 members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Committee Member Hayleigh Crawford joined during this item, bringing the quorum to
17 members.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
Sarah Stockham, staff, provided an overview of the rezoning request, describing the
location, the existing and proposed zoning districts and the surrounding uses as well as
the site plan and elevations for the proposed multifamily building. Ms. Stockham shared
that the proposal has received one letter of support, 78 letters of opposition, including a
petition of opposition with 181 signatures, albeit staff had received a large file with about
200 letters of support from the applicant earlier that afternoon. Ms. Stockham concluded
by stating staff recommends approval subject to stipulations.
Chair Jay Swart reminded participants from the public that they would remain muted
until it was their turn to speak, during which each speaker would be allotted two minutes
to speak. Mr. Swart urged the applicant to keep the presentation brief and to address
communication with the neighborhood and any subsequent changes to the project
plans.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Nick Wood, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, introduced himself and
stated that he would limit his comments to the changes that have been made as a result
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 505
of outreach. Mr. Wood briefly introduced the site, its surrounding land uses and the
surrounding neighbors that the applicant has worked with, including the Windsor Square
neighborhood. Mr. Wood shared that a tour of the site with leadership from Windsor
Square prompted the applicant to include the appearance of a stepback element,
increase the amount of parking spaces, and construct a traffic signal at 7th Street and
Colter. Mr. Wood displayed the development standards table for the project, detailing
the process by which the number of units was reduced and by which the setbacks, open
space, and parking were increased. Mr. Wood displayed renderings and brought
attention to architectural features that will be used to create the illusion of a step back in
height. Mr. Wood displayed outreach maps with addresses of both letters of support and
opposition.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Hayleigh Crawford asked for the requisite for rezoning to PUD rather than utilizing the
site’s by-right uses. Mr. Wood elaborated that PUD zoning is the only way to achieve
the density and height that is needed given the size of the site, which exceeds the
intensity and density that waivers could provide in the current C-2 zoning. Ms.
Crawford asked Mr. Wood if he believes that the current zoning is undesirable. Mr.
Wood responded that, yes, with the example of a convenience store or service station
as an unfavorable alternative allowed by-right.
Dawn Augusta inquired about current on-street parking along Colter Street. Sarah
Stockham, staff, stated aerial imagery shows vehicles parked along Colter Street. Mr.
Wood responded that there is in fact street parking allowed on Colter Street, while also
reminding the committee that the number of efficiency and one-bedroom units has
allotted extra parking spaces within the project.
Hayleigh Crawford requested clarification on a discrepancy in the parking and unit
counts. Mr. Wood replied that the unit count had been lowered, though the parking
study was conducted based on a higher amount.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Crozier introduced herself as the president of the North Central Phoenix
Homeowners’ Association in opposition. Ms. Crozier stated that her organization has
worked closely with developers in the past and cited the Broadstone on 7th as a project
in which the developer appropriately addressed concerns about height and building
massing.
Andrew Rogers introduced himself as a neighbor of Windsor Square in opposition. Mr.
Rogers expressed his beliefs that the applicant has been disingenuous and difficult to
contact. Mr. Rogers shared that, while not opposed to growth, he would prefer anything
other than the project as it is proposed. Mr. Rogers emphasized diversity and inclusion
and stressed that the applicant has not made any proper changes.
Mike Freret introduced himself as a neighbor of Windsor Square in opposition. Mr.
Freret stated that the proposal threatens to undermine the spirit and cohesion of the
community, as the current zoning and the density it allows is appropriate. Mr. Freret
does not find a traffic signal to be a solution to the increase in traffic and density.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 506
Susan Rhoads introduced herself as a nearby neighbor in opposition. Ms. Rhoads
stated that she was present during the walkaround with the applicant and that she does
not believe any of the concerns brought up during that meeting were addressed. Ms.
Rhoads also finds balconies above 7th Street hazardous.
Andre DeMarco introduced himself as a neighbor of Colter Street in opposition. Mr.
DeMarco shared traffic as his largest concern, citing the recent increase of traffic in the
area. Mr. DeMarco believes that the proposal will exacerbate traffic as many vehicles
will utilize Colter to access the 51 freeway.
Sandy Grunow introduced herself as a neighbor in opposition. Mrs. Grunow brought
attention to a school bus pick up and drop off at 8th Place and Colter Street; she
believes the proposal will increase traffic and therefore threaten the safety of the
children and others walking or cycling along Colter. Ms. Grunow believes that ingress
and egress to the site should be via 7th Street and that the proposal will not help
address the affordable housing crisis.
William Saul introduced himself as a neighbor in support. Mr. Saul shared that he finds
that the developer has made small changes to address some of the issues. Mr. Saul
emphasized the need for housing in Phoenix and expressed that he finds the proposal
as a solution, though he encourages the developer to be a good neighbor.
Dani Huval introduced herself as a nearby homeowner in support. Ms. Huval shared
that she works for a general contractor that builds with the developer and that the
developer has been trustworthy and of high quality in her experience. Ms. Duval noted
that the number of units has been reduced to address density concerns.
Nicole Vasquez introduced herself as a neighbor of 12 years in support. Ms. Vasquez
emphasized the various amenities of the project that will facilitate walking and biking as
well as her desire to see the 7th Street Corridor improved and updated.
Tom Hilditch introduced himself as the president of the Windsor Square board in
opposition. Mr. Hilditch echoed the sentiments of Mr. Freret and relayed the
community’s desire to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hilditch echoed
the concerns about height and density and the improper precedent that will be set by
the project.
Jackie Rich introduced herself as the president of the Murphy Trail Estates
Neighborhood Association in opposition. Ms. Rich expressed concern about setting a
precedent of intensity should the project be approved. Ms. Rich stated that the project
belongs in downtown Phoenix and that the proposed height and setbacks are not
contextually appropriate.
Peggy Oursland introduced herself as a neighbor in opposition. Ms. Oursland
expressed opposition to the proposed traffic signal at Colter Street and her desire to
maintain the existing zoning.
Suzanne Dohrer introduced herself as a neighbor in opposition. Ms. Dohrer relayed
concern about noise coming from unit balconies and apprehension for moving forward
without a completed traffic study. Ms. Dohrer urged the committee to be wary of the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 507
recently gathered petitions of support as the petition was misleading and hastily
prepared.
John Hathaway introduced himself as an officer in a local charity in opposition. Mr.
Hathaway shared that the proposed rent for the project far exceeds the neighborhood
average, and that he in fact has heard of two dozen families who have been displaced
from the neighborhood. Mr. Hathaway implored staff and the committee to approve
affordable housing units rather than luxury housing units.
Dr. Jelena Vladikovic echoed the sentiment of opposition. Dr. Vladikovic expressed
grave concerns about water supply and shortages, as well as a concern for
displacement as a result of luxury construction.
Larry Whitesell introduced himself as the co-chair of the Peak Neighborhood
Association in opposition. Mr. Whitesell implored staff and the applicant to elaborate on
elements of the case’s staff report including general plan consistency, consistency with
surrounding uses, comparison of standards for similar projects, and ingress/egress on
Colter Street. Mr. Whitesell brought attention to a quote from the first round of review for
the PUD, stating that the proposal does not propose any significant enhancements
which are superior to conventional zoning to justify the requested PUD.
APPLICANT RESPONSE:
Mr. Wood stated that projects of this nature are always subject to change after the first
submission. Mr. Wood displayed a map of outreach made to surrounding residents,
from which arose a substantial number of individual letters of support. Mr. Wood
contested claims that these letters were misleading or incomplete. Mr. Wood cited two
meetings with neighborhood leaders including Ms. Crozier and Mr. Whitesell during May
and June of 2022 and mentioned that the project was 220 feet away from the nearest
home to refute claims that the project would hover over nearby homes or that noise
could be heard from overhead balconies. Mr. Wood reaffirmed the need for a traffic
signal at Colter Street in the name of safety for bicyclists, transit riders, and turning
vehicles, as well the need for enhanced streetscape using detached sidewalks and
bioswales for water retention. Mr. Wood clarified the range of projected rents, shared
his belief that the traffic signal would reduce noise from high-speed traffic, and
emphasized the improvements to an outdated site. Mr. Wood reiterated that the project
has incorporated architectural elements to create the illusion of stepback in contrast to a
taller building at 7th Street and Missouri.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Craig Tribken shared that he lived in Windsor Square for over 20 years. Mr. Tribken
iterated that while state legislature does not provide for rent control, the best way to
mitigate affordability is through supply and demand. Mr. Tribken stated his belief that
Windsor Square has sufficient protection from cut-through traffic, 7th Street needs to be
changed in terms of reverse lanes and attached sidewalks, and the property currently
provides by-right uses that would adversely affect the neighborhood.
Christina Eichelkraut concurred with Mr. Tribken about housing affordability, though
she believes that there is other recourse, including the public hearing process. Ms.
Eichelkraut stressed the issue of affordability and doubts that an approval of yet another
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 508
luxury multifamily project would alleviate the issue, if not exacerbate it. Ms. Eichelkraut
raised concerns about the project’s efficacy of public transit use given its parking count
and concerns about developers being obliged to pay for infrastructure improvements.
Ms. Eichelkraut does not believe concerns from Windsor Square are invalid on account
of distance.
Tom O’Malley iterated that the committee spends a great deal of time vetting these
projects and that he himself had done a thorough survey of the surrounding area. Mr.
O’Malley expressed support for both ingress/egress from Colter and the installation of a
traffic signal at Colter, as well as doubts that the project will impede views or increase
cut-through traffic in Windsor Square.
Hayleigh Crawford asked for a clear comparison between the existing development
standards and the proposed standards. Ms. Crawford does not find the proposal to be
innovative or sufficient in supporting goals for walkability or tree and shade plans.
Dawn Augusta stated that the project exemplifies responsible development due to the
installation of a traffic signal and its contribution to housing stock in the city of Phoenix.
Adiba Jurayeva stated that her biggest concern was parking, though it has been
addressed via stipulations and for this reason she is in support.
Danny Sharaby expressed support for the project and the changes that have bene
made, though the Committee should be wary of public outreach by the applicant in
terms of online interactions and dissemination of information.
Craig Tribken reiterated his support of the streetscape improvements, setbacks, and its
provision of housing.
Vice Chair William Fischbach shared that he and Chair Swart had spent several
hours meeting with the applicant which determined his narrow vote of support. Mr.
Fischbach relayed that due to site constraints and parking requirements, the developer
was not able to offer concessions in height or density, thereby requiring a PUD. Mr.
Fischbach commended the project’s provision of detached sidewalks and improvements
to the neighborhood, the character of the Windsor Square and North Central
neighborhoods, and the housing opportunity for young professionals in the project.
MOTION:
Tom O’Malley motioned to approve Z-27-22-6 per the staff recommendation. Craig
Tribken seconded.
VOTE:
14-2-1; motion to recommend approval of Z-27-22-6 per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Bayless, Beckerleg Thraen, Garcia,
Jurayeva, Nye, O’Malley, Paceley, Rush, Sharaby, Tribken, Fischbach and Swart in
support, Crawford and Eichelkraut in opposition, and Czerwinski in abstention.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 509
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 510
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 15
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-27-22-6 (Zola North Central PUD)
Location: Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter Street
From: C-2
To: PUD
Acreage: 2.55
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: ZOM Living
Owner: 7th & Colter, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 6/7/2022 Information only.
Camelback East 9/6/2022 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 14-2-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chair Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-27-22-6, per the Camelback
East Village Planning Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation as requested by
the representative regarding ground level walls.
Maker: Vice-Chair Mangum
Second: Gaynor
Vote: 7-2 (Busching and Perez)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The project site is appropriately located along an arterial street, a planned bicycle
corridor, a bus route and adjacent to a bus stop.
2. The proposal will develop an underutilized site and provide additional housing options
within proximity to commercial and employment uses.
3. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and is
compatible in intensity and scale with recently approved projects near the subject site.
Page 511
4. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will facilitate
pedestrian-oriented design and promote a safer walking and bicycling environment.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Zola North Central PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative
date stamped August 26, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the following:
b. Page 11, D3: Parking, Section A. Vehicular standards: Update Item 1. Resident
and Visitor Parking (Minimum) to Efficiency Units: 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit,
1-Bedroom Units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, 2-Bedroom Units: 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit.
c. Page 11, D3: Parking, Section A. Vehicular standards: Add a sentence that
reads “A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be utilized for
visitor parking purposes.”
2. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the property
with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
3. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the east side of 7th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The developer shall fully fund a traffic control device at the intersection of 7th Street
and Colter Street, as determined and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. The
developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation identified
through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. The developer shall construct a bus stop pad along northbound 7th Street. The Bus
stop pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with
a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be located from the intersection of Colter Street
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
Page 512
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.
10. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN PATIO WALLS AT THE
GROUND FLOOR UNITS FRONTING A PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAYS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CONNECT TO THE GROUND FLOOR
UNITS TO THE SIDEWALK, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Les Scott at 602-261-8980, leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Page 513
ATTACHMENT F 1 6 2 -1 5 -1 4 3
162-1 5-225 1 6 2 - 1 5 -1 8 2 1 6 2 - 1 5 -1 4 4 1 6 2 - 1 5 -1 8 3 1 6 2 - 1 5 -1 4 5 1 6 2 - 1 5 -1 8 4
1 6 2 - 1 5 -1 4 6
162-15-006
162-21-052A 162-1 5-181 162-15-226 162-1 5-227 162 -15 -2 28 162-15-080B
162-15-007
162-21-014
162-21-118 162-15-193 162-15-244 162-15-248 162-15-245
162 -15 -2 03 162 -15 -1 64
162-15-204 162-15-163
162-15-155 162-15-162 162-15-247 162 -15 -2 02
162-15-237 162-15-200
162-15-166 162-15-165 162-15-246 162-15-201
162-15-008
162-15-249 162-15-206 162-15-169 162-15-170
162-21-070F
16 2 -1 5 -2 5 1
162-15-250 162-15-207 162-15-252
162-15-156
162-15-161
162-15-205
162-15-242
162-15-194 162-15-238 162-15-199
162-15-167 162-15-208
162-15-150 162-15-231 162-15-168
162-15-230 162-15-185
162-21-070B 162-15-188 162-15-149 162-15-186 162-15-147
162-15-157
162-15-198
162-15-239 162-15-243
162-15-195
162-15-209 162-15-214
162-15-160
162-15-232 162-15-187 162-15-148
162-15-171
162-15-229
162-15-009
162-15-218 162-15-253 162-15-256
162-15-233 162-15-152
162-15-154
162-15-176
162-15-190 162-15-235
162-15-151
162-15-153 162-15-192
162-15-234 162-15-236
162-15-217
162-15-189 162-15-158 162-15-241
162-21-070E 162-15-191 162-15-196 162-15-159
162-15-254
162-15-210
162-15-212 162-15-175
162-15-240
162-15-257 162-15-172 162-15-255 162-15-213
162-15-197
162-15-010
162-15-211
162-15-173
162-15-174
162-21-074
162-15-216 162-15-215
162-21-071 162-21-065A 162-15-011
162-21-066A 162-21-075
162-21-072
162-21-069
162-15-077A
162-15-012
OREGON AVE
162-15-126 162-15-136
162-15-013
162-15-135
162-15-125
162-21-032 162-21-033
162-15-134
162-21-034 162-21-035
162-15-102
162-15-091
162-21-036
162-15-093
162-15-101
162-15-092
162-15-109
162-15-110 162-15-111 162-15-112 162-15-095 162-15-014
162-15-108 162-15-124
162-15-123
162-15-094 162-15-133
162-15-081D
162-15-096 162-15-137
162-15-107 162-15-113 162-15-132
162-15-015
162-15-090
162-15-114
162-15-106
162-15-097 162 -15 -1 22
162-15-089 16 2 -1 5 -1 3 1
162-15-115 162-15-130
162-15-088
162-15-121
162-15-105 162-15-098
162-21-062D
162-15-016
162-21-122 162-21-062C
162-15-120
162-21-063B 162-21-063C
162-15-087 162-15-116
162-15-129
162-21-121
162-15-104 162-15-099
162-15-119
162-15-103 162-15-128
162-15-117
162-15-100
162-15-086
162-15-127 162-15-118 162-15-017
162-15-081B
COLTER ST
162-16-079A
162-19-174
162-19-176A
162-19-172A
162-19-177
162-16-094A
162-19-003 8
-1 7
-1 9
16 2
16 2 -1
162-16-095A
162-16-050D
162-19-170
9 -0 0
-1 7 9
2 -1 9
1A
7TH ST
8TH PL
162-19-169
162-16-135A
162-19-180
162-19-002A
6TH ST 162-19-181
162-19-182A 162-16-107A
162-19-163A
162-16-118A
162-19-040B
162-19-040A
162-19-183A
Legend 162-16-044B
162-19-039
Zoning Petition Area 162-19-185
162-16-119A
Proposed Amendment Area # of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 9/34 = 26%
MEDLOCK DR
162-16-056
162 -16 -13 8
162-19-186B
% Area: 0.90ac./7.79ac = 12%
162-19-186A
Lots/Tracts/Condos 3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED
Signed Petition
162-19-201B 162-19-199B
162-19-079 162-16-064
Petition Verification Map
I 0 100 200 Feet
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept.
Page 514
for Z-27-22
10/14/2022
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 11/2/2022
APPLICATION NO/ Z-27-22-6 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Northeast corner of opposition x applicant
7th Street and Colter
Street
APPEALED FROM: PC 7120 North 20th Street
October 6, 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85020
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC Larry Whitesell
HEARING November 2, 2022 602-370-8453
thepeakna@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Information presented at the Planning Commission was inaccurate.
RECEIVED BY: RECEIVED ON:
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
Diana Hernandez Applicant
David Urbinato Adam Stranieri (for PHO Appeals)
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 515
Page 516
Page 517
Page 518
Page 519
Page 520
Page 521
Page 522
Page 523
Page 524
Page 525
Page 526
Page 527
Page 528
Page 529
Page 530
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
Page 534
Page 535
Page 536
Page 537
Page 538
Page 539
Page 540
Page 541
Page 542
Page 543
Page 544
Page 545
Page 546
Page 547
Page 548
ATTACHMENT G
Page 549
Page 550
Page 551
Page 552
Page 553
Page 554
Page 555
Page 556
Page 557
Page 558
Page 559
Page 560
Page 561
Page 562
Page 563
Page 564
Page 565
Page 566
Page 567
Page 568
Page 569
Page 570
Page 571
Page 572
Page 573
Page 574
Page 575
Page 576
Page 577
Page 578
Page 579
Page 580
Page 581
Page 582
Page 583
Page 584
Page 585
Page 586
Page 587
Page 588
Page 589
Page 590
Page 591
Page 592
Page 593
Page 594
Page 595
Page 596
Page 597
Page 598
Page 599
Page 600
Page 601
Page 602
Page 603
Page 604
Page 605
Page 606
Page 607
Page 608
Page 609
Page 610
Page 611
Page 612
Page 613
Page 614
Page 615
Page 616
Page 617
Page 618
Page 619
Page 620
Page 621
Page 622
Page 623
Page 624
Page 625
Page 626
Page 627
Page 628
Page 629
Page 630
Page 631
Page 632
Page 633
Page 634
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
Page 638
Page 639
Page 640
Page 641
Page 642
Page 643
Page 644
Page 645
Page 646
Page 647
Page 648
Page 649
Page 650
Page 651
Page 652
Page 653
Page 654
Page 655
Page 656
Page 657
Page 658
Page 659
Page 660
Page 661
Page 662
Page 663
Page 664
Page 665
Page 666
Page 667
Page 668
Page 669
Page 670
Page 671
Page 672
Page 673
Page 674
Page 675
Page 676
Page 677
Page 678
Page 679
Page 680
Page 681
Page 682
Page 683
Page 684
Page 685
Page 686
Page 687
Page 688
Page 689
Page 690
Page 691
Page 692
Page 693
Page 694
Page 695
Page 696
Page 697
Page 698
Page 699
Page 700
Page 701
Page 702
Page 703
Page 704
Page 705
Page 706
Page 707
Page 708
Page 709
Page 710
Page 711
Page 712
Page 713
Page 714
Page 715
Page 716
Page 717
Page 718
Page 719
Page 720
Page 721
Page 722
Page 723
Page 724
Page 725
Page 726
Page 727
Page 728
Page 729
Page 730
Page 731
Page 732
Page 733
Page 734
Page 735
Page 736
Page 737
Page 738
Page 739
Page 740
Page 741
Page 742
Page 743
Page 744
Page 745
Page 746
Page 747
Page 748
Page 749
Page 750
Page 751
Page 752
Page 753
Page 754
Page 755
Page 756
Page 757
Page 758
Page 759
Page 760
Page 761
Page 762
Page 763
Page 764
Page 765
Page 766
Page 767
Page 768
Page 769
Page 770
Page 771
Page 772
Page 773
Page 774
Page 775
Page 776
Page 777
Page 778
Page 779
Page 780
Page 781
Page 782
Page 783
Page 784
Page 785
Page 786
Page 787
Page 788
Page 789
Page 790
Page 791
Page 792
Page 793
Page 794
Page 795
Page 796
Page 797
Page 798
Page 799
Page 800
Page 801
Page 802
Page 803
Page 804
Page 805
Page 806
Page 807
Page 808
Page 809
Page 810
Page 811
Page 812
Page 813
Page 814
Page 815
Page 816
Page 817
Page 818
Page 819
Page 820
Page 821
Page 822
Page 823
Page 824
Page 825
Page 826
Page 827
Page 828
Page 829
Page 830
Page 831
Page 832
Page 833
Page 834
Page 835
Page 836
Page 837
Page 838
Page 839
Page 840
Page 841
Page 842
Page 843
Page 844
Page 845
Page 846
Page 847
Page 848
Page 849
Page 850
Page 851
Page 852
Page 853
Page 854
Page 855
Page 856
Page 857
Page 858
Page 859
Page 860
Page 861
Page 862
Page 863
Page 864
Page 865
Page 866
Page 867
Page 868
Page 869
Page 870
Page 871
Page 872
Page 873
Page 874
Page 875
Page 876
Page 877
Page 878
Page 879
Page 880
Page 881
Page 882
Page 883
Page 884
Page 885
Page 886
Page 887
Page 888
Page 889
Page 890
Page 891
Page 892
Page 893
Page 894
Page 895
Page 896
Page 897
Page 898
Page 899
Page 900
Page 901
Page 902
Page 903
Page 904
Page 905
Page 906
Page 907
Page 908
Page 909
Page 910
Page 911
Page 912
Page 913
Page 914
Page 915
Page 916
Page 917
Page 918
Page 919
Page 920
Page 921
Page 922
Page 923
Page 924
Page 925
Page 926
Page 927
Page 928
Page 929
Page 930
Page 931
Page 932
Page 933
Page 934
Page 935
Page 936
Page 937
Page 938
Page 939
Page 940
Page 941
Page 942
Page 943
Page 944
Page 945
Page 946
Page 947
Page 948
Page 949
Page 950
Page 951
Page 952
Page 953
Page 954
Page 955
Page 956
Page 957
Page 958
Page 959
Page 960
Page 961
Page 962
Page 963
Page 964
Page 965
Page 966
Page 967
Page 968
Page 969
Page 970
Page 971
Page 972
Page 973
Page 974
Page 975
Page 976
Page 977
Page 978
Page 979
Page 980
Page 981
Page 982
Page 983
Page 984
Page 985
Page 986
Page 987
Page 988
Page 989
Page 990
Page 991
Page 992
Page 993
Page 994
Page 995
Page 996
Page 997
Page 998
Page 999
Page 1000
Page 1001
Page 1002
Page 1003
Page 1004
Page 1005
Page 1006
Page 1007
Page 1008
Page 1009
Page 1010
Page 1011
Page 1012
Page 1013
Page 1014
Page 1015
Page 1016
Page 1017
Page 1018
Page 1019
Page 1020
Page 1021
Page 1022
Page 1023
Page 1024
Page 1025
Page 1026
Page 1027
Page 1028
Page 1029
Page 1030
Page 1031
Page 1032
Page 1033
Page 1034
Page 1035
Page 1036
Page 1037
Page 1038
Page 1039
Page 1040
Page 1041
Page 1042
Page 1043
Page 1044
Page 1045
Page 1046
Page 1047
Page 1048
Page 1049
Page 1050
Page 1051
Page 1052
Page 1053
Page 1054
Page 1055
Page 1056
Page 1057
Page 1058
Page 1059
Page 1060
Page 1061
Page 1062
Page 1063
Page 1064
Page 1065
Page 1066
Page 1067
Page 1068
Page 1069
Page 1070
Page 1071
Page 1072
Page 1073
Page 1074
Page 1075
Page 1076
Page 1077
Page 1078
Page 1079
Page 1080
Page 1081
Page 1082
Page 1083
Page 1084
Page 1085
Page 1086
Page 1087
Page 1088
Page 1089
Page 1090
Page 1091
Page 1092
Page 1093
Page 1094
Page 1095
Page 1096
Page 1097
Page 1098
Page 1099
Page 1100
Page 1101
Page 1102
Page 1103
Page 1104
Page 1105
Page 1106
Page 1107
Page 1108
Page 1109
Page 1110
Page 1111
Page 1112
Page 1113
Page 1114
Page 1115
Page 1116
Page 1117
Page 1118
Page 1119
Page 1120
Page 1121
Page 1122
Page 1123
Page 1124
Page 1125
Page 1126
Page 1127
Page 1128
Page 1129
Page 1130
Page 1131
Page 1132
Page 1133
Page 1134
Page 1135
Page 1136
Page 1137
Page 1138
Page 1139
Page 1140
Page 1141
Page 1142
Page 1143
Page 1144
Page 1145
Page 1146
Page 1147
Page 1148
Page 1149
Page 1150
Page 1151
Page 1152
Page 1153
Page 1154
Page 1155
Page 1156
Page 1157
Page 1158
Page 1159
Page 1160
Page 1161
Page 1162
Page 1163
Page 1164
Page 1165
Page 1166
Page 1167
Page 1168
Page 1169
Page 1170
Page 1171
Page 1172
Page 1173
Page 1174
Page 1175
Page 1176
Page 1177
Page 1178
Page 1179
Page 1180
Page 1181
Page 1182
Page 1183
Page 1184
Page 1185
Page 1186
Page 1187
Page 1188
Page 1189
Page 1190
Page 1191
Page 1192
Page 1193
Page 1194
Page 1195
Page 1196
Page 1197
Page 1198
Page 1199
Page 1200
Page 1201
Page 1202
Page 1203
Page 1204
Page 1205
Page 1206
Page 1207
Page 1208
Page 1209
Page 1210
Page 1211
Page 1212
Page 1213
Page 1214
Page 1215
Page 1216
Page 1217
Page 1218
Page 1219
Page 1220
Page 1221
Page 1222
Page 1223
Page 1224
Page 1225
Page 1226
Page 1227
Page 1228
Page 1229
Page 1230
Page 1231
Page 1232
Page 1233
Page 1234
Page 1235
Page 1236
Page 1237
Page 1238
Page 1239
Page 1240
Page 1241
Page 1242
Page 1243
Page 1244
Page 1245
Page 1246
Page 1247
Page 1248
Page 1249
Page 1250
Page 1251
Page 1252
Page 1253
Page 1254
Page 1255
Page 1256
Page 1257
Page 1258
Page 1259
Page 1260
Page 1261
Page 1262
Page 1263
Page 1264
Page 1265
Page 1266
Page 1267
Page 1268
Page 1269
Page 1270
Page 1271
Page 1272
Page 1273
Page 1274
Page 1275
Page 1276
Page 1277
Page 1278
Page 1279
Page 1280
Page 1281
Page 1282
Page 1283
Page 1284
Page 1285
Page 1286
Page 1287
Page 1288
Page 1289
Page 1290
Page 1291
Page 1292
Page 1293
Page 1294
Page 1295
Page 1296
Page 1297
Page 1298
Page 1299
Page 1300
Page 1301
Page 1302
Page 1303
Page 1304
Page 1305
Page 1306
Page 1307
Page 1308
Page 1309
Page 1310
Page 1311
Page 1312
Page 1313
Page 1314
Page 1315
Page 1316
Page 1317
Page 1318
Page 1319
Page 1320
Page 1321
Page 1322
Page 1323
Page 1324
Page 1325
Page 1326
Page 1327
Page 1328
Page 1329
Page 1330
Page 1331
Page 1332
Page 1333
Page 1334
Page 1335
Page 1336
Page 1337
Page 1338
Page 1339
Page 1340
Page 1341
Page 1342
Page 1343
Page 1344
Page 1345
Page 1346
Page 1347
Page 1348
Page 1349
Page 1350
From: Daniel Lawrence
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Public comment for 10/06/22 Planning Commission meeting item 15, Z-27-22-6 (Zola North Central PUD)
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 3:08:51 PM
Hello,
I apologize for the late submission of my comment, I regret not being more engaged in this
process earlier. I would like to submit the following comment for the Planning Commission
meeting on October 6, 2022:
I would like to express my support for item 15, application # Z-27-22-6 (Zola North Central
PUD). Phoenix urgently needs more housing, and this development is a far superior use of this
centrally located parcel than a small commercial building with excessive surface parking.
The proposed project is not perfect. Luxury housing is not accessible to much of Phoenix's
workforce, which is a regrettable shortcoming of Zola North Central. That said, additional
housing units generally help reduce rents by increasing supply, and luxury housing is better
than no housing in this regard.
The addition of parking spaces furthers the cycle of car dependency and car-centric
infrastructure in our city, which produces negative outcomes too numerous to list here.
Additionally, residents of the Kensington condominiums to the east deserve better than to have
a parking garage directly adjacent to their homes.
Again, I support this PUD case despite its shortcomings. The improvements to walkability are
fantastic. I am overjoyed by the proposed construction of a HAWK signal at 7th St and Colter,
and would encourage consideration of a fully signalized intersection to alleviate some of the
single vehicle traffic and speeding concerns in the surrounding neighborhood.
Opponents voice concerns about this project's failure to mitigate the urban heat island effect.
Surely dense, efficient multifamily construction with shade trees and improved pedestrian
infrastructure is no worse for this important consideration than the lot's current composition,
more than half of which is black asphalt. I consider this opposing argument to be a bad faith
talking point.
I love my Phoenix neighborhood and want more people to be able to move here and enjoy all
it has to offer. Residents living in this centrally-located area in the fifth-largest city in the
nation must recognize that while historic preservation is essential, development is both
immanent and necessary. Those who can't imagine life without car-centric design and an
endless expanse of single family houses ought to consider adopting a Gilbert address.
Thank you,
Daniel Lawrence
Page 1351
ATTACHMENT H
From: GREGORY S ANDERSON
To: Sarah Stockham; council.district6@phoenix.gov
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 5:07:25 PM
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I am a resident of North Central Phoenix. One of the important reasons that I chose North Central is because of the
strong zoning Laws that have been put inlace to protect our neighborhoods from high density development and
important set backs on all of our properties which we have all had to abide. It seems every few months there is
someone or some entity that wants special treatment, which has not been and shouldn’t be allowed, that would only
start the degradation of our neighborhood standards. This cannot be allowed to happen. First and foremost because
it would be unfair to those of us who have lived by these same restrictions for many years. But as important, this
will only be opening of the flood gates and soon our neighborhoods will be forever changed for the worse.
Please vote no to this project to protect our neighborhood and to be fair to the rest of us that have had to obey and
live with the well placed zoning rules.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gregory S. Anderson
6030 N Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ. 85012
602-524-6591
Page 1352
Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members,
I live in the area of Central Avenue and Bethany Home Road. I am writing to express my opposition
to the proposed Zola Building at
Coulter and 7th Street.
For some unknown reason the City has been allowing these types of buildings to be constructed
at various locations in Central Phoenix.
Without exception they are all abominations and eyesores, conflicting with the traditional open
spaces around buildings in Phoenix.
I have noticed that, since the City has approved too many of these monstrosities, that traffic in
Central Phoenix has gotten much worse.
There is a reason that there are Density requirements. Please enforce them. Your decisions impact
our lifestyle and property values.
The City adopted the current Building Code for good reason. Please honor and enforce the required
setbacks, building heights and parking space requirements in the Building Code.
The only reason that I can think of why this project would be approved is Greed. Greed on the part
of the developer, and greed on the part of the City to collect the building fees.
The neighbors, who elect our city representatives, are the ones that will be negatively impacted by
this project.
Please vote NO on this project as it is proposed, and require the developer to re-submit a project
that complies with the City’s building standards.
Sincerely,
Tod V. Dickey
President
VMI Holdings Inc.
5050 N 40th Street *** NOTE – New Address and Phone extension ***
Suite 280
Phoenix Az 85018
602-954-8578 x1313
602-954-8648 Fax
Page 1353
Page 1354
Page 1355
~Birdie Matern~
602-741-2345 [lifeonourlittlecorner.blogspot.com]
Page 1356
Page 1357
Jackson Olson
From: Sarah Stockham
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 10:34 AM
To: Jackson Olson
Subject: FW: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Can you check that this one has been saved in the S drive? If not, please save it using the naming convention
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Tom Meissner
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 5:18 PM
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Z 27 22 6 Zola North Central
As a resident of the North Central neighborhood I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development at
the NEC of 7th Street and Coulter.
Although the use is generally consistent with many of the surrounding neighborhood's uses, the scale is not
appropriate. When exceptions and changes are made that allow larger scale in a given area it causes no justification for
denying other similar and slightly larger projects. It is the beginning of a creep that eventually changes the general
character of that neighborhood.
To allow this project will set a precedent for other large scale projects that will eventually dominate the area with size.
North Central has tenaciously held on to its character and encroachments that begin to erode that are a threat to our
neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Tom Meissner
303 W Berridge Lane
Page 1358
Page 1359
Page 1360
From:
Date:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Page 1361
Page 1362
Page 1363
To: Planning Commission
From: Sue Rhoads
RE: Opposition to Zola
Pictures attached demonstrate that the 60 feet Zola with 200++ residents on the corner of Colter and 7th
Street is a bad idea.
1, The profile of the building as demonstrated by a picture taken at Mariposa and 5th Street of the
monstrous apartment structure south of Camelback on 7th Street is clear that it will be an eyesore from
both east and west of Colter and 7th Street.
2. In addition, school bus pickup already challenging on colter and 8th Street if curb side parking
expands beyond the current issues of curbside parking on Colter it will cause an even bigger problem.
Colter is not wide enough.
3. Traffic running east of 7th Street on Colter is already an issue as evident by the sign posted to protect
children.
4. Traffic backup on 7th Street will make it impossible to merge onto 7th Street. Evident by the Gompers
bus attempting to go south on 7th Street. In addition, I have a video of a SUV attempting to go north
from west of 7th Street exiting Colter traveling in the reverse lane the wrong way to merge to go north.
Balconies, shrubs and trees will further obstruct the view of traffic exiting the east side of Colter and 7th
Street.
***This intersection is already a nightmare and dangerous.
Please say no to Zola’s massive 60 feet/ 200-unit structure.
Respectfully,
Sue Rhoads
Page 1364
Page 1365
Page 1366
Page 1367
Page 1368
Page 1369
Page 1370
Page 1371
From: Larry Whitesell
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Mary Crozier; Sandy Grunow; Andy Rogers; Mike Freret; Andre DeMarco; Sue Rhoads; Jackie Rich; Anna Lee
Speer
Subject: Zola North Central PUD - Z-27-22-6
Date: Monday, October 3, 2022 7:47:17 PM
Attachments: Traffic Engineering Markup Cropped.pdf
Traffic Engineer Review.pdf
Area Developments.pdf
Recent New Units.pdf
Housing Initiative Channel 5.docx
2nd Submittal Luxury.pdf
Pre-App Acres_DU.pdf
Dear Planning Commissioners –
It was a pleasure meeting with those of you who were available. I appreciate your
time and willingness to learn “the other side of the story” from neighborhood leaders
and residents who cherish our neighborhoods and our City.
An important aspect of this case is that some of the most important details were
identified as issues by various City departments but were ignored by the applicant.
Despite documentation of the issues from the Pre-Application meeting on February
1st through the review of the 2nd Submission of the project on August 12th, the
September 2nd staff report omits or “flips” on some of the issues. These include:
· How the project goes over and above existing ordinance standards to
justify the entitlements
· Non-compliance with the General Plan Land Use Map
· Not consistent with other recently approved projects in the area
· Access on 7th St (an arterial) vs Colter St (a local street)
· Coordination with the multi-modal network
These remain the issues of concern for us.
Despite these concerns, neighborhood leaders and area residents are not opposed to
multifamily housing at the subject site. However, the project should be scaled to
benefit Project Zero, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and the Housing
Initiative, and not create unintended negative impacts. The developer's legal team is
hired to downplay the negative impacts, but logical analysis of the details will refute
several of the developer’s claims.
I. Safety – Project Zero
A. Setback at least 25 feet
1. Zola should follow the examples of other recently approved
projects that we supported like Broadstone on 7th and Willowick at 16th
St & Colter. These developments have height and density, but they are
setback and stepped back from the arterial streets (7th St and 16th St)
more than is Zola.
2. The proximity of the patios to the curb is dangerous due to the
speed of traffic on 7th St. Even the proposed bioswale will not prevent
airborne cars from crashing into the patios.
B. Wider sidewalks – Project Zero
Page 1372
1. Other projects have wider sidewalks, 8-10’ instead of 5’. Per
Attachment
2. Wider sidewalks are important to achieve Project Zero.
C. Access on 7th St, not Colter - Comprehensive Bike master Plan Per
Attachments
1. Traffic Engineer states “There shall be no vehicular access on
Colter Street.”
2. Traffic Engineer states that “The Zoning Ordinance provides
guidance to direct traffic onto arterial roadways when available. In this
instance, 7th Street is the adjacent arterial road connection.”
3. Colter is part of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Multi-modal network
4. Proposed traffic light at 7th St & Colter
a. Mr. Wood states that the neighbors east of 7th Street are
very happy with the addition of a traffic light at the intersection of
7th St & Colter.
b. This is patently untrue based on the many residents who
have given us input on this idea.
c. A traffic light can only be added if the traffic volume on both
th
7 St and on Colter warrants it.
d. An independent traffic study must be conducted prior to
approval of this application to determine if the subject intersection
meets the criteria specified by the Federal Department of
Transportation.
II. Housing Initiative
A. The housing shortage right now is in workforce housing, not luxury
housing. (The Phoenix Housing Department, Joseph MacEwan, August 25,
2022) Per Attachment
B. Wood falsely states that the surrounding area is lacking in new luxury
apartment rentals. But he provides a chart of 5 projects that are on the market,
being developed or approved within 1-mile of 7th St & Colter that will add 1,178
“luxury”/ ”high end apartments” to the inventory. Per Attachment
C. Wood is apparently now saying that the Zola units aren’t “luxury.” The
submittal date stamped July 26, 2022, clearly states, “This project provides an
opportunity to redevelop this underutilized site into a neighborhood enhancing,
luxury residential community. Development of the project will help to further
diversify the availability of housing types and density ranges in the immediate
surrounding area, as well as attract residents with disposable incomes…” (2nd
Submittal, July 26 2022, pg. 6) Per Attachment
D. Having 20-30 fewer units at Zola won’t make a difference in the overall
housing shortage.
1. The original application for this project showed the parcels as 2.06
and asked for 186 units. Per attachment
2. The 1st submittal showed the parcels as 2.55 acres (gross) and 200
units. However, the 2.06 net acres did not change, so 186 units was
enough for the developer originally. That should be the maximum
number now.
E. Adding luxury apartments to the area will be detrimental to the Housing
Initiative
Page 1373
1. Existing affordable rental properties in the area will increase the
rents
2. Working class and fixed income residents will be forced to find more
affordable housing that is already the City’s greatest need.
Based on the information presented in this outline, I respectfully request that the Zola
North Central PUD project be modified to require
1. A 25’ setback on the west 7th Street frontage, a 15’ setback on the south
Colter Street frontage
2. A maximum height of 30’ on the west 7th Street frontage, then 40’ feet
from curb, step back to a maximum height of 48’
3. Sidewalk on west 7th Street frontage a minimum of 8’
4. 30’ Driveway on 7th Street frontage. There shall be no vehicular access
on Colter Street per City of Phoenix Traffic Engineer.
5. Dense landscaping with 4” caliper trees on the east property setback to
shield the abutting residential complex from the 60' garage or dwelling units
I also request that this case be continued until an independent traffic study is
conducted to determine if the intersection of 7th Street & Colter meets the
requirements for the installation of a traffic signal.
Again, thank you to those who made time for in-person and virtual meetings, and for
each of you who dedicate your volunteer time to serve on the Planning Commission.
We neighborhood leaders and residents who participate in the rezoning process also
volunteer countless hours with the hope of preserving a sustainable city.
Larry Whitesell, Co-chair
the PEAK NA
Page 1374
Page 1375
Page 1376
By AZFamily Digital News Staff
Published: Aug. 25, 2022 at 9:21 AM PDT|Updated: Aug. 25, 2022 at 10:48 AM PDT
PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5) -- Rent has skyrocketed across the Phoenix metro area and the City of
Phoenix is trying to address it through the Phoenix Housing Initiative.
According to the most recent Phoenix Housing Department report, the city is almost at its
halfway point of the goal to create or preserve around 50,000 units by 2030. The Phoenix
Housing Initiative, originally launched in 2019, reviewed the 23,000 housing units to get an idea
According to the report, 22,683
units have been created or preserved since the initiative launched. 16,776 were market-price
units. 960 affordable units were created, while 2,152 were preserved.
funding to help support affordable housing development. Add to that sort of housing shortage
supply shortage, the gap that we have, you know, cost increases, delays to construction. All of
Phoenix Housing Department.
For those needing affordable housing options, fewer than 1,000 units were created or preserved
by the department. The city says that it is aware of the disparity and that it is working to close the
gap. When the city looked at the numbers pre-pandemic, he said there was a housing shortage of
have in recent years. We
have about 3,200 affordable units that are right now either in pre-development or under
One unit near Van Buren Street and 20th called Harmony at the Park is set to be
complete by the end of this year, but there is still a long way to go. To help spur
development, MacEwan said the city council allocated $12 million in federal funding
from the American Rescue Plan Act toward affordable housing.
Copyright 2022 KTVK/KPHO. All rights reserved.
Page 1377
Page 1378
Page 1379
Page 1380
Page 1381
Page 1382
Page 1383
From: Floral Keepsakes
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Zola North Central #15
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 3:48:35 PM
I own the building directly across the street (5202 North 7th street) from where they are planning on
building Zola.
I am in opposition of the size of this apartment complex. It is way too large for the area. Parking will
definitely be an issue. I have concerns of tenants using my parking lot, also my view will be
extremely obstructed.
Thank you,
Lisa Conti
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1384
From: Marlena Dominguez
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 5:24:46 PM
Dear Chairman Howard and Planning Commission Members,
This letter concerns a proposal to build Zola North Central, a 60 foot high, 200 unit
apartment building on the north-east corner of 7th St and Colter—10 feet from
the Imperial Plaza Condo property line. This matter is identified as Zola North Central,
Zoning Case Z-27-22-6.
I’d like to express my concerns with the proposed standards and offer some changes.
Height: The proposed zoning of a planned unit development (PUD) will stand 60 feet in
height. This will negatively impact my community standing at 21ft. I would support the
proposed PUD zoning if the developer will reduce the height from 60 to 48 feet.
Set-backs: I believe the developer should increase the 15 ft. set backs at 7th Street,
Colter St. and your west property line to better blend into the surrounding neighborhoods
and to not overwhelm the area.
Ingress/Egress: A 250+ car garage will create a tremendous increase of residential
traffic on Colter. The garage entrance would be better placed on 7th Street as has Alta
Marlette, Vela on 7th Street and as planned at the Broadstone on 7th.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns when making your decision.
Thank you,
Marlena Dominguez
Community Member of the Imperial Plaza
Opposition to Zola North Central is supported by:
Windsor Square Special Planning District – Mike Freret, mikefreret@gmail.com
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association – Mary Crozier, info@ncpha.org
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association – Jackie Rich
Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association – Sandy
Grunow, phxmidcenturymodernna@gmail.com
602-819-1482
the PEAK Neighborhood Association – Larry Whitesell, thepeakna@gmail.com 602-
370-8453
Page 1385
From: Sarah Stockham
To: Victoria C Murrillo
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 8:25:30 AM
For PC. I will also have to pause my Legistar and add this.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Marlena Dominguez
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 5:13 PM
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Dear Chairman Howard and Planning Commission Members,
This letter concerns a proposal to build Zola North Central, a 60 foot high, 200 unit
apartment building on the north-east corner of 7th St and Colter—10 feet from
the Imperial Plaza Condo property line. This matter is identified as Zola North Central,
Zoning Case Z-27-22-6.
I’d like to express my concerns with the proposed standards and offer some changes.
Height: The proposed zoning of a planned unit development (PUD) will stand 60 feet in
height. This will negatively impact my community standing at 21ft. I would support the
proposed PUD zoning if the developer will reduce the height from 60 to 48 feet.
Set-backs: I believe the developer should increase the 15 ft. set backs at 7th Street,
Colter St. and your west property line to better blend into the surrounding neighborhoods
and to not overwhelm the area.
Ingress/Egress: A 250+ car garage will create a tremendous increase of residential
traffic on Colter. The garage entrance would be better placed on 7th Street as has Alta
Marlette, Vela on 7th Street and as planned at the Broadstone on 7th.
Page 1386
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns when making your decision.
Thank you,
Marlena Dominguez
Community Member of the Imperial Plaza
Opposition to Zola North Central is supported by:
Windsor Square Special Planning District – Mike Freret, mikefreret@gmail.com
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association – Mary Crozier, info@ncpha.org
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association – Jackie Rich
Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association – Sandy
Grunow, phxmidcenturymodernna@gmail.com
602-819-1482
the PEAK Neighborhood Association – Larry Whitesell, thepeakna@gmail.com 602-
370-8453
Page 1387
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
52 item(s)